Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Resident Labourers' Ordinance

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a large number of employment agreements made under the Resident Labourers' Ordinance of 1937 are not completed in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance; and what steps he proposes to take for the protection of resident labourers in Kenya.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): All such agreements must be attested by a magistrate or attesting officer, who may reject any contract which, in his opinion, may lead to a breach of the Ordinance, and I have no information that any have in fact been made which infringe its provisions.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will supply him with some information which, no doubt, he will follow up.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in a number of employment agreements in Kenya, purporting to be made under the Resident Labourers' Ordinance, 1937, there are added the words, "Women and children shall pick pyrethrum when required at 1 cent a lb."; how far under the Ordinance it is lawful to demand the services of the wife and children when required to work in addition to the resident labourer; what is the minimum age

for employment of children; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Lyttelton: I understand that there are no current contracts stipulating a rate of 1 cent per lb. and that the current rate for pyrethrum picking is 4 to 5 cents per lb. Labourers' wives and children commonly do work for the employer, their rates of wages being protected by specification in the labourer's contract. There is no legally enforceable commitment for them to work for their employer. There is no minimum age for the employment of children in agriculture when in the company of their parents.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged and am grateful for the penultimate assurance given in that answer. I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with contracts. Will he bear in mind that as there are 100 cents to the ls., that means about Is. 3d. per cwt., and that this clause is in current contracts in my possession, "Women and children shall pick pyrethrum when required at 1 cent per lb."?

Mr. Lyttelton: I shall be glad to look at any communications sent to me by the hon. Member. I should mention that the employment of children, when living away from home, is controlled.

Coffee and Sisal

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the area in Kenya planted for the growing of sisal, coffee and pyrethrum, respectively, by European farmers and African farmers, shown separately.

Mr. Lyttelton: In 1951 Europeans grew 60,000 acres of coffee and 234,137 acres of sisal. Africans grew 1,735 acres of coffee and very many thousands of them grow sisal, though no figure of acreage can be given as it is mostly grown in small and scattered patches. By May, 1952, Europeans had planted 21,347 acres and Africans 800 acres of pyrethrum.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Would he complete his inquiries, because then he will probably find that the sisal in general is planted in hedgerows only and is not allowed to be grown in large plots, and that of the acreage under coffee quite a


substantial amount belongs to the ex-Senior Chief Koinange who won a case in the court of appeal on this issue after his trees had been pulled up?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not sure what the hon. Member is getting at. I cannot give acreage figures, but the exports of African sisal totalled £344,000 in 1951.

Situation

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement regarding the situation in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: I see no need for a further statement at present. Important developments since my last statement on 28th January have already been brought to the notice of the House through my answers to Questions

Mr. Fenner Brockway: But is it the case that what began by being action against Mau Mau is now becoming action against a large part of the Kikuyu tribe, and that racial relations are actually worse today than they were at the beginning?

Mr. Lyttelton: Those are not questions but statements to which I could not agree.

Kikuyu Registration (Fines and Imprisonments)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider, with a view to their reduction, the sentences of three months' imprisonment, with hard labour and fines of £150 each, or, in default, a further six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and of one month's imprisonment and fines of £50 each, or, in default, three months' hard labour, passed on 10 and 16 Africans, respectively, at Nakuru, Kenya, on 28th January for refusing to be photographed, for the purposes of registration, as employed Kikuyus outside the Kikuyu reserve.

Mr. Lyttelton: The prerogative of mercy is expressly delegated to the Governor of Kenya and I do not consider that it would be proper for me to attempt to intervene in these cases.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a fine of £150 upon an African squatter is equal to his wages for 12 years and

that the equivalent for a miner in this country would be a fine of £4,500? In view of those facts, will the right hon. Gentleman intervene to stop these disgracefully high fines?

Mr. Lyttelton: Much wider considerations are involved. I can only repeat that the prerogative of mercy rests with the Governor of Kenya and that grave issues would be involved if I were to attempt to intervene in a case of this kind.

Mr. Dugdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman state what are the other considerations involved, and does he realise that opinion, both in Africa and elsewhere, will be shocked at the savagery of those sentences for comparatively trivial offences?

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman, who has held office in the Colonial Office, ought to know what are the serious considerations. If the Secretary of State attempted to exercise or to influence the prerogative of mercy, which is expressly delegated to the Governor, the whole course of colonial justice would be impeded.

Mau Mau Oath

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will set up a small committee of persons with expert knowledge of African witchcraft and of tribal psychology to consider the profound influence of the Mau Mau oath upon Kikuyu mentality; and to make recommendations designed to weaken, or ridicule, the spell of fear which this oath imposes on Kikuyu.

Mr. Lyttelton: I welcome the intention of the Question, but I do not think that a committee is the best way of tackling the problem. The Kenya Government constantly consult all those who are best able to give advice in these matters.

Mr. Donner: In view of the binding character of the oath in the minds even of Kikuyu who have been forced against their will to take it, will my right hon. Friend consider some alternative measure to lessen its effect if the proposal which I have made does not commend itself to him?

Mr. Baldwin: Would not the best measure for dealing with the problem be the spreading of primary education and the teaching of Christianity?

Emergency Powers (Newspapers)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the Emergency Powers in Kenya, which enable control to be exercised over the local Press, extend to the importation into the Colony of newspapers likely to increase the present disturbances.

Mr. Lyttelton: Not at all. Any such action is taken under the Kenya Penal Code, which gives the Governor-in-Council absolute discretion to prohibit the importation of any publication which would be contrary to the public interest. The Emergency Powers do not extend to imports.

Detained Persons

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people of Kenya up to date have been arrested in connection with the disturbances there; how many have been screened and tried or released, respectively; how many are now in custody; and where the latter are.

Mr. Lyttelton: 2,249 persons are now in custody awaiting trial—1,228 in police custody, 735 in prison and 286 in remand homes. This figure is reached as follows: Between 20th October, 1952, and 25th February, 1953, 61,907 persons were arrested, but 3,043 were released immediately after preliminary questions. 58,864 were screened, and of these 39,002 have been released and 17,613 have been tried.

Mr. Hughes: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed and comprehensive reply, may I ask whether his methods of screening are having any appreciable effect in promoting a peaceful settlement in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should imagine that the enforcement of law always has an effect upon the conditions of law.

Mr. Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that his methods are having the effect which he and all of us desire?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not understand what the hon. and learned Member means by "my methods." These are methods of enforcing the law of the country.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of tribes, other than Kikuyu, have been sentenced or detained as a result of recent disturbances; and to which other tribes have they belonged.

Mr. Lyttelton: Five Meru, five Embu, five Akamba, one Luo, one Mdigo and one Rabai have been detained, and 15 Meru and one Luo have been sentenced to imprisonment for Mau Mau offences.

Mrs. White: Are we to take it from that reply that, broadly speaking, Mau Mau is making no progress among tribes other than the Kikuyu?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Lady must draw her own deductions from the information which I have given.

Mr. Baldwin: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in "The Times" this morning in which Chief Simeon Kioko, speaking on behalf of 400,000 Kamba, stated that he utterly condemned Mau Mau and would have nothing to do with it? In view of the fact that this reserve is much more overcrowded than the Kikuyu reserve, may I ask him if he will give instructions to expedite the resettlement at Makueni for the Kamba, in order that the loyal people in Kenya can see that it pays dividends to be loyal?

Wages and Working Conditions (Committee)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the composition and terms of reference of the Committee on African Wages and Working Conditions to be set up by the Kenya Government.

Mr. Lyttelton: The composition of the Committee has not yet been finally decided. It will contain members of all three races who have special knowledge and experience in the subject.
The terms of reference are:
To consider and report on the adequacy of African cash wages and other conditions and benefits of employment, and to give special consideration to the following questions.

1. Whether existing terms and conditions of employment could be so altered as to provide African workers with greater incentives to industry, efficiency and increased output.
2. Whether the present method of calculating the statutory minimum wage in urban areas is reasonable.


3. Whether all or any of the findings of the committee should be extended to areas outside municipalities and towns."

Mr. Remnant: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him when he hopes that the Committee will get down to its task? Secondly, does not the appointment of this Committee stem from the tabling of a Motion by the leader of the Independent Members, Mr. Michael Blundell?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Committee is expected to begin work soon. I believe that my hon. Friend is accurate in his second question.

Kikuyu Women (Treatment)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will appoint a commission of women to go to Kenya to investigate the complaints made by 1,000 Kikuyu women in a petition, of which a copy has been sent to him.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. But I am asking the Governor for a report on these complaints.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, might I ask him whether he does not agree that the complaints made in this petition are sufficiently serious and urgent to warrant this sympathetic gesture being made on behalf of the women of this country?

Mr. Lyttelton: I assure the hon. Lady that I will not let this matter drop. There are no complaints of specific incidents in the so-called petition. As soon as I have got a report from the Governor, I will look at the matter again.

Mr. Alport: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better to leave a matter such as this to the East African Women's League who represent women of all races in East Africa and who have a thorough knowledge of conditions on the spot?

Mr. Lyttelton: I want to get a little more information before I give any reply.

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many women of the Kikuyu tribe have been subjected to collective punishment since the drive to stamp out Mau Mau activities began.

Mr. Lyttelton: One thousand and fifty-nine Kikuyu women from the Leshau

Ward of the Laikipia District were returned to the Reserves. No other collective punishment has been directly applied to Kikuyu women.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that when these women are deprived of their normal source of income steps are taken so that at least they have shelter and sustenance?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. During the course of their transfer back to the Reserve they have been in transit camps where the Government have looked after them. Measures are now being taken to see that they are not left in a condition of distress.

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports have been made to him regarding the treatment of Kikuyu women left without means of support owing to the confiscation of their property; what arrangements have been made to provide reasonable food and shelter for them and their children; and how many instances have been reported to him, or complaints made to him, to the effect that some of these women have been terrorised and beaten up by the police.

Mr. Lyttelton: None, Sir. No persons have been left without means of support and adequate arrangements have been made for food, shelter and transport. The only complaint I have received is the one mentioned in the question by the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle).

Miss Lee: is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the police camps, where I understand some of these Kikuyu women are working, they have been treated with reasonable decency?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am never satisfied about anything, but I have received no complaint. If the hon. Lady has some incident which she wishes to mention, I shall be glad to look into it.

Sasumua Dam Project (Contracts)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, in 1950 the order for Sasumua Dam in Kenya was given to a French firm at approximately half the price tendered by reputable British contractors; and why it is now necessary to call for fresh tenders.

Mr. Lyttelton: This contract was awarded by the Nairobi City Council to a company registered in Kenya whose tender was the lowest—though not, I understand, by such a wide margin as the Question suggests—and seemed satisfactory. The local company later applied for and obtained permission to issue a majority of its shares to French interests. I am not aware that fresh tenders have been called for but I am consulting the Governor and will circulate a reply later in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend agree that before large sums of hard-won capital are spent on such schemes it is as well to investigate the site and also the background of the lowest tendering firm? If the capital is produced from Britain, should not the job go to a British firm?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, but at the time the contract was placed I understand the company was of British registration.

Kikuyu Migrants

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration has been given to securing land, food and a means of livelihood for those Kikuyus who are compelled to migrate from their normal habitation; what steps are taken to discover to what extent those so transferred have been guilty of assisting Mau Mau criminals; and how many of those Kikuyus arrested or charged with crime come from Nairobi or other towns.

Mr. Lyttelton: They have been provided with food and transport. Substantial numbers of volunteers can be employed in development schemes both within the Kikuyu Reserves and in other areas of the Colony. Where Kikuyu have no claim to land in their Reserves the Kenya Government are examining the possibility of providing a means of livelihood for them elsewhere.
Resident labourers who are returned to the Reserves are screened by local police and headmen on arrival at their locations to ascertain what, if any, connection they have with Mau Mau. Persons against whom there is evidence of such activities are tried in the criminal courts of the Colony. Fifteen thousand six hundred and twenty-nine Africans were arrested in Nairobi, mostly Kikuyu. Of these, 5,353

have been charged with offences in connection with the emergency and the remainder have been released.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not this seem to indicate that a large number of the Mau Mau culprits come from Nairobi or the towns? In view of that, is not it desirable to try to discriminate between the criminal elements and the innocent elements? Lastly, does not this mean that greater efforts should be made whereby land and a means of livelihood should be secured for those who are compelled to migrate?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member should be chary of using the expression, "come from Nairobi" since a large part of the population is a migrant one. I do not want to commit myself, on the plans for resettlement outside the Kikuyu Reserve, to describing the areas until a little more investigation has taken place. But the matter is being pursued energetically.

Mr. Sorensen: What about land?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is what I mean.

Independent Schools (Closing)

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state how many children of the Kikuyu tribe have been deprived of schooling, owing to the closing of independent schools.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children are still without facilities for education as a result of the closing of the independent schools in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: About 13,000. Arrangements have been made by which all these children will be in State-aided or State-controlled schools within the next four months.

Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any special arrangements are being made to supply additional teachers, or whether special training arrangements are being made for teachers to man these schools?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes. When I was in Kenya measures were being taken to increase the number of teachers for State-aided schools. The standard of education in the independent schools was very low indeed.

Economic Development

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will send instructions to the Governor of Kenya indicating to him the scale on which he should prepare plans for the economic advancement of the African people and the extent to which he can expect financial support for such plans from United Kingdom sources.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him and others on the 25th February. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Sir R. Acland: May I take it from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for initiating action to improve conditions in Kenya or even to indicate the scale on which plans should be prepared?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not admit the implication of that question. If and when applications for further finance are required, we will consider them sympathetically.

Relief Work

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what approaches have been made to the Red Cross, the Society of Friends or other similar bodies which have experience in relief work, to help in the present emergency in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Director of Medical Services in Kenya is Chairman of the Joint Council of the St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. The Council has set up a Committee to organise relief work in the present emergency in Kenya. I understand that the Society of Friends is not organised in Kenya to undertake work of this sort. The Red Cross is already assisting with the work of the three transit camps set up to help orderly movement of Kikuyu back to the reserves.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Taxation System, African Colonies

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiry is taking place in the African Colonies into the system of direct taxation

of Africans, especially into the possibility of replacing hut or poll tax by a more scientific method of taxation.

Mr. Lyttelton: No general inquiry is taking place. This matter is necessarily one for the individual Governments concerned, most of which have held inquiries of their own in recent years.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the growing requirements of social services in such territories as these, is it possible to find a better system than the flat-rate one so often employed?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend will agree that a uniform system is impossible. Many territories have variations in the methods of collecting tax.

Mr. J. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the unscientific poll tax often forces Africans to leave their villages and work in distant parts to get money to pay the tax? Will he consider the matter in that light?

Mr. Lyttelton: It is very difficult for me to give a satisfactory answer. Where the incomes of Africans differ widely, the poll tax acts unfairly on those who are earning more, but it is difficult to do more than try to vary the rate of tax in relation to economic conditions.

Tuberculosis Specialists

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many whole-time and part-time tuberculosis specialists, respectively, are at present employed in the colonial medical services; and what steps he is taking to impress upon Colonial Governments the importance of having tuberculosis specialists in these Colonies where they have not so far been appointed.

Mr. Lyttelton: About 25 full-time tuberculosis specialists are employed in 17 territories, including all the larger Colonies. I have no information about the number of part-time tuberculosis specialists helping Colonial Governments. The importance of appointing tuberculosis specialists is fully realised, but we cannot get enough. There are, however, arrangements for training in tuberculosis for colonial medical officers at the University of South Wales. Further, my consultant on tuberculosis


has visited all Colonial Territories in West Africa and the Far East in order to advise on the problem.

Students (Accountancy and Banking)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the difficulty experienced by colonial students in accountancy and banking in securing necessary practical experience, what steps he is taking to secure this experience for students.

Mr. Lyttelton: Special arrangements have been made with the professional accountancy bodies in this country which should go some way towards meeting the difficulties experienced by accountancy students from the Colonies. Colonial students wishing to obtain practical experience in banking are best advised to enter the employment of a bank in their own territory.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although some facilities do exist and very good work has been done by his own Department in this way, there are, in fact, large numbers of students who try to get this practical experience and cannot get it? May I ask him if he could do something in order to acquaint suitable firms and businesses of the fact that these people need this experience, and that, if they opened their doors, they would be doing a great service to African students?

Mr. Lyttelton: The professional accountancy bodies are the ones chosen to carry out the objective which the hon. Member and I have in mind, but the matter is extremely complicated, and we have met with only partial success.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Overseas Food Corporation

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what results have been obtained from the experiments conducted by the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika.

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend will find details in the Annual Reports of the Overseas Food Corporation, of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. Macpherson: The latest Report ran to last March. What I am asking my right hon. Friend is whether there is any indication that yields are improving and costs are being reduced.

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend will know that the Report covers a great many tropical crops such as sorghum, soya beans and groundnuts, and I could not in the course of question and answer give a resumé of what has happened.

Fertilisers (Cost)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why farmers in Tanganyika are required to pay more for fertilisers than in Kenya when the railway transport is a Government monopoly in both countries; how much cheaper it it is in Northern Rhodesia; and what is the reason.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Governors concerned and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have received their replies.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least two European communities in Southern Tanganyika have become so dissatisfied about the problem—after all, it should be dealt with by the High Commissioner for the three Territories—that they have actually asked to join Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing up the matter. I had received no information on it until his Question was put down. I have now asked for information.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I welcome the conversion to Socialism indicated by the Question. Can the right hon. Gentleman state that the railways will be run as a social service and not merely as a commercial enterprise?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can give no such undertaking.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the price of fertilisers in Northern Rhodesia as well, it being more than double that in this country, and that the difference is not accounted for by the difference in freight charges alone?

Land (Cultivation)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for an estimate of the amount of land unoccupied by Africans in Tanganyika which could be used for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is impossible to give any estimate which would be of much value. The areas are considerable.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend remember that at Strasbourg last autumn a resolution was passed to the effect that everything should be done by all European countries who have interests in that part of the world to try to develop the areas as far as possible while at the same time safeguarding the conditions of the Africans? Will he make quite sure that Tanganyika is pulling its weight?

Mr. Lyttelton: The matter is constantly engaging the attention of the Governor of Tanganyika in order to make the fullest use of land which is suitable for agriculture

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (DROUGHT)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent crops in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, have recently been affected by lack of rain; how far the position is regarded as serious; and what is the estimated shortage of food which will result.

Mr. Lyttelton: The short rains below average and it will be serious if the long rains fail or are poor. If they are good the crops should be enough for all the needs of East Africa. Local food shortages have occurred mainly in Tanganyika which, it is estimated, will require 25,000 tons of grain to meet requirements until August. So far shortages have been met by drawing on existing stocks, by moving grain within East Africa and by some small imports.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortage of food caused by drought will be aggravated by the shortage of labour through the removal of squatters from territories in Kenya? What steps are being taken to replace this labour either by recruiting from other tribes or by the screening of loyal Kikuyu remaining there?

Mr. Lyttelton: That carries the matter a little wider than my hon. Friend's Question. However, I may say that some grain imports will be necessary.

Mr. J. Johnson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statistical evidence of long-term changes of climate in those parts? Some people believe that desiccation is beginning in the eastern and central parts of Africa.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to enter realms of prophecy in which I am incapable of being very efficient by reason of my profession.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Tribal Disturbance

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the disturbance caused by Arab tribesmen in Aden; what are the taxes on crops which they have refused to pay; and what are the objections of the tribes to the payment of such taxes.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Aden Protectorate Levies and the Royal Air Force have been assisting Lahej forces to re-establish the authority of the Sultan of Lahej over two rebellious chiefs, one of whom had connived at the murder of five of his relatives and had subsequently refused to arrest their murderers. Most of the tribesmen who accompanied these chiefs when they took to the hills have now accepted amnesty terms, but one of the chiefs with less than 20 followers is still raiding Aden Protectorate territory from the Yemen.
There is evidence that he has obtained assistance, including arms and ammunition, in the Yemen and Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Taiz has made strong representations to the Yemen Government to prevent this assistance and raiding from within Yemen territory. The tax to which one of the chiefs objected is imposed on crops at the rate of 6s. per acre as assessed by a committee of local Sheikhs. So far as I know, the reasons for his objection were those felt by most taxpayers everywhere.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman said that the tax is 6s. per acre. Are we to understand that it is levied on the


tribe as a whole and paid through the chief and not by individual tribesmen? Also, were there any casualties in the disturbance?

Mr. Lyttelton: "Casualties" is a wide term. I ought to have notice of that question.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the supplementary question? Is the tax paid through the chief?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, but, of course, the chief would himself be liable for part of the tax, and that is what he objects to.

Housing

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the serious housing conditions in Aden, he will advise the Governor of Aden to consider carrying out a housing scheme instead of building a town hall in commemoration of the Coronation.

Mr. Lyttelton: No. Sir. I am advised that it is the wish of the Aden community to build a town hall, which will be financed largely by public subscription.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUNEI (HOUSING)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Brunei completed only 30 dwelling houses in 1951; and what are the estimated housing needs in the Colony, including housing for sanitary workers.

Mr. Lyttelton: Acute shortage of labour limited construction in 1951. The 30 houses then built provided quarters for 150 employees of Government. Outstanding requirements today are estimated at 150 quarters, all of which should be provided by the end of next year.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why the Government of Brunei found it so difficult to get labour and materials to build 30 houses when in the same period the British Malayan Petroleum Company built 284 houses? Where did the company get the materials and labour?

Mr. Lyttelton: That appears to be rather against the argument advanced by

an hon. Member opposite just now. It is an argument for private enterprise as against State enterprise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Smuggling (Chinese Mainland)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many prosecutions for smuggling petroleum products, rubber tyres and tubes and raw rubber from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland there were during 1952 and early 1953; and whether such smuggling is on the increase or decrease.

Mr. Lyttelton: Since the beginning of 1952 there have been six prosecutions for smuggling petroleum products from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland, two prosecutions for smuggling rubber tyres and tubes and 11 prosecutions for smuggling raw rubber. The smuggling of petroleum products, rubber tyres and tubes has decreased while the smuggling of raw rubber remains very small.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently representatives of the "Daily Express" have been in Formosa and have published statements from there, which are not unsympathetic to the Formosan attitude, which is that there has been quite a lot of leakage from Hong Kong? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that that is absolutely inaccurate?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not conceive it to be part of my responsibilities to correct these rumours other than by giving the facts, which I have already done in reply to my hon. Friend.

University Students

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that China no longer sends students to the University of Hong Kong, whether the Governments of Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak will be consulted in order to secure students from those Colonies.

Mr. Lyttelton: The number of students at Hong Kong University, most of whom are Chinese, rose from 572 in 1941 to 990 in 1952, and there are still more applicants for admission than places available. There is no occasion to seek students from the three territories mentioned, since the University is already open to them.

Mr. Sorensen: Can I take it, therefore, that there are no vacancies in the University—places which previously were occupied by students from China itself?

Mr. Lyttelton: There are more applicants than there are vacancies.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what specific steps he is now taking to explain and commend to the non-European people of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the proposed scheme of central African federation for those territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is primarily a task for the Governments of the two territories, who have made and are making every effort to explain and commend the proposals, particularly through the District Administration.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the primary task in this matter is to stimulate faith amongst the Africans in Government guarantees? What specific steps by way of conferences and conversations are taking place on the spot to bring that about?

Mr. Lyttelton: The measures which I have just enumerated in my reply.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it proposed to consult the protectorate and provincial councils and the national councils in both Northern Territories?

Mr. Lyttelton: These consultations have been going on for some time and, as the right hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend made an extensive tour of these areas quite recently.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies his latest information as to the numbers of non-European people in each of the territories of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland who are respectively in favour of and against the proposed scheme of central African federation for those territories.

Mr. Lyttelton: Because of an energetic campaign of misrepresentation led by the African Congress, opposition to federation is probably wider than when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State

for Colonial Affairs visited the territory last summer. But it is no more based on reason, fact or understanding than it was then, and is a mixture of traditional fear of the unknown and dislike of many points falsely alleged to be features of the scheme but which are not in the scheme at all.

Mr. Hughes: Have the investigations of the Minister with regard to this matter led him to change his opinion that the disturbances in Kenya are not due to economic grievances? What steps is he taking to remove the economic grievances and to reassure Africans?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. and learned Member has slipped back into a previous Question of his about Kenya. This Question relates to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, as the hon. and learned Member will see if he looks at the Order Paper.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does this not indicate that it is desirable that African opinion should be consulted through the official bodies recognised by every Government—the councils to which I referred?

Mr. Hughes: By a slip of the tongue, I did say Kenya, but it must have been perfectly evident to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that I was referring to the other Territories. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in taking advantage of a slip of the tongue in that way? Will he now answer the question?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can only answer if the hon. and learned Member gives some indication of the disturbances to which he is referring.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it not a very great pity that district officers were not instructed not only to explain but also to commend the scheme to the African population, more than two years ago?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not true that since the officers have commended it the opposition has increased?

Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he proposes to take now—in view of the fact that he has now admitted that African opinion is very greatly against the scheme—to try to influence African opinion, or to try to get a very clear idea


of the reasons African opinion is against it? What steps does he propose to take?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already answered that question once— —

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, I have—that the scheme is being commended to African opinion by the District Councils.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement in amplification of Command Paper No. 8754, The Federal Scheme, to show whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, Clause 146, which provides for a review of the Constitution within seven to nine years, gives to the United Kingdom Government any right of proposing or making or participating in making any changes in the Constitution otherwise than through the operation of the processes described in paragraphs 144 and 145.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The Clause provides that Her Majesty's Government will participate in the review of the Constitution and they will be able to propose any changes they may think desirable. If changes are to be made the machinery used could be either by the procedure laid down in Clauses 144 and 145 of the Federal Scheme, or, as in the case of the Constitution itself, by an Act of the Imperial Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Cotton Crop

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the cotton crop of Uganda the Government still buys.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Lint Marketing Board, which was set up under Ordinance in 1949, still buys and disposes of all lint cotton and cotton seed produced in Uganda.

Mr. Craddock: Can my right hon. Friend say on what basis the price paid to the African grower is formed?

Mr. Lyttelton: The cotton used to be sold in bulk to the Raw Cotton Corn-mission and India, but the 1952–53 crop is being disposed of in the free market.

Cement Industry

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the position regarding the establishment of a cement industry in Uganda; the original estimated cost of establishing the industry; the present estimated cost; and how it compares with the capital employed in establishing the cement industry in Northern Rhodesia and in Jamaica.

Mr. Lyttelton: The cement factory at Tororo, which is expected at first to produce 55,000 tons a year, started work last month. In 1948 the cost of establishing the industry was estimated at £1,155,250; the most recent estimate is £2,451,000. The cement industries in Northern Rhodesia and Jamaica cost £1,335,000 and £995,000, respectively.

Mr. Craddock: Is there any explanation for this extraordinary difference between the original estimate and the actuality?

Mr. Lyttelton: There are three main differences. Firstly, it was estimated that a standard cement works would be suitable, but that was found not to be so; secondly, the devaluation of sterling in relation to the Italian lira, by which the plant was purchased; and thirdly, the general rise in costs of labour, transport and machinery during the period.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend say what the delivery price of cement is compared with imported cement in Uganda?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think I had better see that question on the Order Paper.

Ginneries

Mr. Beresford Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ginneries the Uganda Government has bought for lease to Africans; to whom the ginneries previously belonged; in what districts the ginneries are situated; what price was paid for each; and how many gins, single, or double roller, there are in each ginnery bought.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Uganda Government have so far acquired four ginneries for sale or lease to African Co-operative


Societies. With permission, I will circulate the detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Craddock: Are the ginneries which are being operated by the Africans proving to be a success in every way? Has my right hon. Friend any information on that?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must not detain the House. I will give my hon. Friend the details, which are rather extensive.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) to give the House the benefit of his vast experience in this particular brand of gin?

Following is the information:

1. Kawempe Ginnery in Mengo district bought from Harshad Ltd., Kampala. Equipped with 16 single roller gins. £60,000 paid for the ginnery, and £10,500 for ancillaries, spares, and a maize mill, totalling £70,500. Ginnery leased to Uganda Growers' Co-operative Union.
2. Kawempe Ginnery in Mengo district bought from Kampala Ginners Ltd., Kampala. Equipped with 29 single roller gins. £70,000 paid for the ginnery, and £28,500 for ancillaries, spares, lorries, maize mill, and a workshop, totalling £98,500. Ginnery transferred to Uganda Growers' Co-operative Union hire purchase agreement.
3. Lukonge Ginnery in Mbale district bought from Tororo Ginners Ltd., Tororo, Equipped with 10 single roller gins. £43,000 paid for the ginnery and £1,550 for ancillaries and spares, totalling £44,550. Ginnery leased by Bagishu Khuheentsa Co-operative Union.
4. Namwenda Ginnery in Busoga district bought from Kenya Busoga Cotton Company Limited, Kamali. Equipped with 11 double roller gins. £57,500 paid for the ginnery and £9,355 for ancillaries, spares and lorries, totalling £66,855. Ginnery leased by Busoga Growers' Co-operative Union.

Bugishu Coffee Industry

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the Bugishu coffee industry is now established on a co-operative basis; how many individual members and primary societies are affiliated to the scheme; and what is now the composition and the duties of the directing board.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Governor on the subject and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA (DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Cole: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to make the Colony of St. Helena more self-supporting.

Mr. Lyttelton: Over one-third of St. Helena's allocation of £200,000 from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds is being spent on measures to conserve and rehabilitate the land, improve stock, increase production and educate public opinion in the vital importance of good husbandry. A company which is the largest local landowner is co-operating very fully in these measures.

Mr. Cole: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he can tell if any progress has been made in reviving the lily bulb industry, which was such a great source of industry in the Colony during the war?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can send my hon. Friend some fuller details about what progress has been made over the whole field.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Russian Imports and Exports

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reciprocal trade there has been between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Malaya since the Russian promise of industrial aid to the countries of South-East Asia made at the United Nations Economic Conference at Singapore 18 months ago.

Mr. Lyttelton: I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the summary figures are these. The total value of Malayan exports to the U.S.S.R. in 1951 and 1952 was £8,600,000 and £3,300,000, respectively, almost entirely of rubber. Imports from the Soviet Union into Malaya during these two years were valued at £4,710 and £3,165, respectively, In 1952 the biggest single item sent from the Soviet Union to Malaya was 4 cwt. of caviar valued at £1,725.
These figures show clearly that the Soviet promises of industrial aid have come to nothing despite the willingness of the Malayan Governments to grant import licences for Russian capital goods if any had been forthcoming at competitive


prices. This situation contrasts strikingly with the increases in imports into Malaya from the United Kingdom, North America and the O.E.E.C. countries: in 1950 £96 million, in 1951 £179 million and in 1952 £159 million.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that as well as offering only caviar to Malaya, that is the only product they have offered to any country in South-East Asia since their flamboyant promises 18 months ago?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is getting, wide of my responsibility.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that as well as caviar they have also exported a considerable number of arms to these countries?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should hesitate to answer that question with a direct negative, because a certain number of arms have entered Malaya, but I do not think they came from Soviet Russia.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the Minister say for whose benefit the caviar was imported—who ate it?

Mr. Lyttelton: That, I am afraid, is beyond me.

Following is the statement:


MALAYAN IMPORTS FROM U.S.S.R.



£ Sterling


—
1951
1952


Total Imports
4,710
3,165


Miscellaneous Foodstuffs
208
2,030


of which




Canned Salmon
132
38


Canned Fish n.e.s.*
76
35


Other Provisions n.e.s.*
—
1,957


Earthenware, Glass, Abrasives
—
581


Cutlery, Hardware, Instruments
4,494
157


Chemicals, Drugs, Dyes, Colours
8
397


* n.e.s.—not elsewhere specified




MALAYAN EXPORTS TO U.S.S.R.



£ Sterling



—

1951
1952


Total Exports
8,589,183
3,349,655


Seeds and nuts for oil, Oil, Fats, Resins and Gums
61,188
—


Rubber and Gutta Percha
8,527,995
3,349,665

Local Government (Development)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made to develop local government in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr. Lyttelton: An encouraging start has been made in the election of local government bodies by popular vote. Thus last year the second annual elections were held in the municipalities of Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Malacca. Also town council elections were held for the first time in three smaller towns, and it is planned to hold similar elections in 14 other towns before the end of this year. Under legislation passed last year, over 50 elected local councils have already been established for rural areas, including new villages, and there should be 70 more by the end of June.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all those concerned, and impress upon them the importance of local self-government as a basis of all good government?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think I need impress on the local Governments the importance of building up local government, because they are doing it so effectively.

Wages Councils and Workmen's Compensation

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will recommend the Singapore and Malayan Legislative Councils to introduce legislation at an early date on wages councils and workmen's compensation so as to bring them more into line with the labour legislation of Great Britain.

Mr. Lyttelton: Legislation on wages councils already exists in Malaya, and it is expected that the Singapore Wages Council Bill will have its Third Reading later this month. A revised Workmen's Compensation Ordinance was passed in Malaya last December and a draft Bill to revise the existing workmen's compensation law is now being considered in Singapore.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware there have been strikes and threats of strikes in Singapore and Malaya during the past 12 months, and that the establishment and enforcement of such legislation would have the effect of reducing them to


a minimum? Will the Minister do everything possible to implement the wages councils as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lyttelton: A Wages Council Ordinance already exists in Malaya, and the Third Reading is about to take place for one in Singapore.

Education (Chinese Children)

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities exist in the Federation of Malaya for the primary education of Chinese children; what assistance is given by Government; what supervision it exercises; and if he will indicate the rate of expansion of educational facilities generally over the past six years.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are 1,065 Chinese primary schools attended by 221,000 children; in addition, 45,400 Chinese attend Government or aided schools in which the medium of instruction is English.
The Government helps schools which conform to certain standards by paying half the salaries of Chinese teachers, the whole salaries of teachers in English and Malay and the employers' contributions to a provident fund. Other Chinese primary schools receive per capita grants ranging from 10 to 20 dollars annually for each pupil. Supervision is exercised through a Government inspectorate consisting of Chinese officers and a few Europeans who speak Chinese.
In the last six years the total number of schools of all types has increased by nearly 40 per cent., the number of pupils by over 80 per cent. and the number of teachers by nearly 100 per cent.

Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister explain the difference between the assistance given to the Tamil, the Malay and the Chinese children?

Mr. Lyttelton: I would prefer the hon. Member to put a question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Braine: Is it not a remarkable thing that such progress has been made in the light of the emergency obtaining in the last four years? In view of the fact that in the public mind "Malaya" connotes emergency, bandits, and so on, could not my right hon. Friend give greater publicity to the very remarkable

social and economic achievements of the Administration there?

Mr. Lyttelton: Progress is not only in these fields. It has been greatly accelerated in many other directions, and I will endeavour to give all possible publicity to it.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the need for rapid development of supplies of electric power in the Federation of Malaya; and what steps are being taken to meet this need.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. In 1949 the Federation Government set up the Central Electricity Board which, in addition to extending supplies to small towns, has completed and brought into operation the first half of a power station of 80,000 kw. near Kuala Lumpur. Plans for the future include more extensions to the grid and possibly more hydro-electric power stations.

New Villages

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to develop community feeling in the new villages in Malaya; with what effect; and how far the villagers are now actively co-operating with the Government.

Mr. Lyttelton: There have for some time been village committees but these are now being replaced by elected local councils with powers to finance and run local services. Schools and community halls have been provided. Home Guard units are being raised from volunteers in every village. Civic courses are attended by village leaders; sport and other local activities are encouraged. These measures have met with considerable success, and I am glad to say that in the great majority of the new villages community feeling and loyalty are growing and real co-operation with the Government is increasingly manifest.

Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend note that his replies to the last three Questions will give very great satisfaction to everyone who has the interests of Malaya at heart?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (EASTERN REGIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that government has almost been brought to a standstill in Eastern Nigeria, if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am advised that the Eastern Regional Executive Council remains properly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council. Government therefore continues in the region, but the work of its Legislature has been interrupted because of tactics adopted by the majority party in the House. The Lieutenant-Governor has all the powers necessary for essential legislation to be enacted and on 28th February exercised them to give effect to the Eastern Region Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is it the case that in the Legislative Council the members, by an overwhelming majority, have declared no confidence in the Government? If that is the case, is not it desirable that a democratic Government in the confidence of the Legislative Council should replace them?

Mr. Lyttelton: No. Sir. Under the Constitution—a provision which was carefully thought out by my predecessor and by the Government of the day—dismissal of Ministers by this process is subject to secret ballot, and the voting on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers was not by secret ballot.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Could there be a secret ballot?

Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that most hon. Members support the principle of a secret ballot to avoid intimidation of Ministers?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry the hon. Lady is in sharp disagreement with her party on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Federation Conference

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British Guiana and Barbados have now decided to send either representatives or observers to the forthcoming conference on West Indian Federation.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not yet had a definite reply from the Acting Governor of either Colony.

Nassau Airfield

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether plans have now been completed for the reopening of Windsor Field, Nassau, so that suitable facilities may be available for British Overseas Airways Corporation to open a dollar-earning service with Comet aircraft.

Mr. Lyttelton: The question of reopening Windsor Field is still under discussion and a decision should soon be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (JUTE CULTIVATION)

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measure of success has been achieved with the experimental cultivation of jute in British Guiana; and whether it is now proposed to produce jute on a commercial basis in the Colony.

Mr. Lyttelton: The first year's experiments have shown that jute can be grown successfully. Mechanised processing also shows some promise. It is however too early to say yet whether full commercial development is justified. The present trials are continuing.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTIVITY (STANDARD OF LIVING)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what action the Government have taken to increase our national output, to keep the people fully employed, to halt the rising cost of living and to preserve our social services; and whether he will show by comparisons with previous years what the results of these plans have been.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): These large and general issues seem better suited to party and political discussions here and out-of-doors than to Question time. I feel that I should trespass on the opportunities of other hon. Members, who are seeking factual information, if I were to attempt to make a detailed reply. I may, however, recommend the hon. Member to


peruse carefully the "Weekly News Letter" issued by the Conservative Central Office under the editorship of Mr. G. E. Christ, from which he might derive valuable educational results.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that I have taken the trouble to read the Conservative Party manifesto? Will he look at that document, when he will see that every promise contained in the Question is also contained in that manifesto? Will he agree that every action of the Government so far has been in contradiction of those promises? May I further ask him whether he is likely to implement some of the promises he made?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman has begun his studies, I can only hope that he will continue.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that all that this Question is asking is whether the Government have justified their existence, and whether the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary honesty, will reply in the negative?

The Prime Minister: I can quite see how the idea whether any particular person has justified his existence or not arises in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly on the occasion of the debate which we are to have this afternoon.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will send to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) copies of the speeches made by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when he will be able to understand the question?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House which is the debate this afternoon to which he has just made reference?

The Prime Minister: I must apologise; I was thinking of the debate tomorrow. No doubt, it is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. In reply to my hon. Friend, I have great respect for the memory of Sir Stafford Cripps, and I think we had better keep the discussion on the high level hitherto maintained.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the "Weekly News Letter" of the Conservative Party, to which he referred, not long

ago strongly condemned the suggestion which arose as to the merging of the Ministry of Pensions and other Departments?

The Prime Minister: I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman studies this literature, which his close interest in party politics and electioneering has no doubt led him to do.

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming like a debate on the Queen's Speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AMALGAMATION)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider further economies in Government Departments by abolishing the office of Postmaster-General, and amalgamating his Department with that of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in a Ministry of Communications.

The Prime Minister: I am advised that such an amalgamation would not lead to economies, and indeed would hardly be practicable.

Brigadier Clarke: May I ask the Prime Minister to try this economy, as I am assured that enough money would be saved to enable Portsmouth and the rest of England to view the Coronation on television? Further, would he do his best to see that these loyal people are allowed to see the Coronation on television?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I shall be going too far if I say that that is quite a different question.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger of reducing the number of Ministers to such an extent that all decisions are left in the hands of what is generally called the bureaucracy, and does he remember the saying of Sir William Harcourt that Ministers exist to tell the Civil Service what the public will not stand?

The Prime Minister: We will endeavour to strike a happy mean between reducing the recently inflated bureaucracy and economising the employment of Members of the House in Ministerial functions. We shall do both of these, and we hope to manage it agreeably and harmoniously,


but gradually, and I trust that we shall carry with us at every stage the full support of the House of Commons.

Mr. Jay: Has the Prime Minister considered abolishing the office of Paymaster-General in the interests of economy?

The Prime Minister: I think he draws no salary, but his small study group have, in my opinion, well earned their keep.

Mr. Peart: Would the Prime Minister agree that, in the interests of economy, it would be far better if he abolished the "overlord" system?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (INDUSTRIAL COLOUR BAR)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the retention of the industrial colour bar in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lyttelton: It remains as stated in the terms of reference of the Dalgleish Commission, namely:
That Africans in Northern Rhodesia should be afforded opportunities for employment in more responsible work as and when they are qualified to undertake such work.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we on this side are returned to power we may well give early consideration to the implementation of the Dalgleish Report and, at the same time, the ending of the industrial colour bar in Northern Rhodesia? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this is done and there is federation, it may well have considerable effect on Southern Rhodesia as well?

Mr. Lyttelton: I hope that the improvement in these matters will not be delayed until the Greek Kalends when the hon. Gentleman is returned to power again.

Mr. Alport: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any response from the unions in Northern Rhodesia to the representations which, we understand, were made by the miners' union in this country with regard to this particular problem?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I do not think that any noticeable progress has been made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give every encouragement to the efforts now being made by the Miners' International to bring together the European and African mineworkers' unions with a view to reaching a settlement on this matter?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that in this matter I stand exactly where he did, and that I, like himself, shall be glad to see some progress.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend send a copy of all this to the South Wales branch of the National Union of Mineworkers next time they are employing Italians?

GERMANY (KRUPP DECONCENTRATION PLAN)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

104. Mr. E. Fletcher: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement with regard to the arrangements made with Herr Alfried Krupp.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to answer Question No. 104 on the arrangements now concluded with regard to the Krupp organisation.
Since the statement made on 15th October by my right hon. Friend extensive discussions have been proceeding between the three Allied High Commissioners, the Federal Chancellor Dr. Adenauer and representatives of Herr Alfried Krupp. These have now resulted in an agreed plan.
The Krupp organisation has been broken up in the following manner. The former Krupp coal and steel interests, which were separated in 1947 from the rest of the Krupp organisation, are being transferred to three new companies, two for coal and one for steel.
Herr Krupp's share holdings in these companies will be sold. He will thus be deprived of ownership and of any controlling interest. With regard to the proceeds of sale, which he will receive, an undertaking has been obtained from Herr Krupp in the following terms:
He will not through the use of the proceeds of the aforementioned sale of securities


acquire or own any securities of or any interest in any enterprise engaged directly or indirectly in the steel or iron producing industries in Germany or in the coal mining industry in Germany.
He has also undertaken that:
He will not, directly or indirectly, acquire or own a controlling interest in, or occupy a controlling position in any enterprise engaged directly or indirectly in the steel or iron producing industries in Germany or in the coal mining industry in Germany.
This undertaking has been formally incorporated in the Krupp deconcentration plan, to which legal effect has been given by an order promulgated in Bonn today under Allied High Commission Law No. 27.
The House may also like to know that, under the plan, the special privileged position particularly in the matter of death duties enjoyed by the Krupp family concern since 1943 is abrogated, and that Herr Krupp will be responsible for the payment of pensions to a large number of former Krupp employees. This commitment has been estimated at about £1 million a year.
Under the provisions of the Bonn Conventions, signed last May, the Federal Government undertook to ensure that all deconcentration plans are carried through. The Federal Government will continue to give effect to Allied High Commission Law No. 27 until the whole deconcentration programme for the West German iron and steel industry has been completed. The remaining assets of the former firm of Friedrich Krupp, which include shipyards, engineering works, and miscellaneous trading concerns, are retained by Herr Krupp.
The House will recall that, as my right hon. Friend made clear on 15th October, Her Majesty's Government have had to deal with this problem within the limits set by certain previous decisions. These were:

i. That the decisions taken in August, 1946, about deconcentration had been limited to hiving off the coal, iron and steel interests only.
ii. Herr Krupp had been handed over for trial in the American Zone in November, 1946.
iii. No steps had been taken to confiscate Herr Krupp's property in accordance with the sentence of forfeiture imposed by the American court in June, 1948,

during the time in which it would have been lawful for this to be done.
iv. Allied High Commission Law No. 27 of May, 1950, which dealt with the deconcentration of the coal, iron and steel industries not only contained no provisions for confiscation but in fact specifically provided for compensation for dispossessed owners.
v. After January, 1951, when the sentence of forfeiture was rescinded no power remained to confiscate any of Herr Krupp's property.

Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the present settlement provides in these circumstances the best possible solution of this difficult problem.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statement he has just made will do little or nothing to allay the deep-rooted suspicion in this country that Herr Krupp, a convicted war criminal, will again become one of the most powerful and influential men in Germany? I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. Can he give an estimate of the amount that will be paid to Herr Krupp for the assets he is being required to sell, and, secondly, will he confirm from what he has said, if I understood him aright, that there will be nothing to prevent Herr Krupp from again investing his proceeds of sale in iron and steel industries once Law 27 has taken effect, which will be in two or three years' time?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I should have thought that the statement I have made, if it is read carefully, would make it quite obvious that this is in fact the best possible settlement that could have been obtained. With regard to the moneys involved, that is really a matter of guessing how much these securities will raise. I have seen it stated that they might raise something between £20 million and £25 million. So far as the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, Herr Krupp's undertaking is not limited in time at all. So far as Law 27 is concerned, that will take a number of years to be fulfilled, and, of course, during that period there will be legal sanction. The German Government have agreed legally to enforce this undertaking.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the arrangement he has just announced for the breaking up of Herr Krupp's holdings of coal, iron and steel into the hands of three companies adequately carries out the intention of the Allied High Commission law of May, 1950, which sought to prevent the excessive concentration of industrial power in the hands of any person? What guarantee is there that Herr Krupp may not regain influence in this area of industry through his own nominees?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, yes, we are satisfied that this will give effect to Law 27. With regard to the second part, Herr Krupp has given an undertaking that he will neither directly nor indirectly seek to secure influence again.

Mr. Paton: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that paper restrictions of this kind will have any real or lasting effect in view of the complete failure in Japan to make effective the similar restrictions attempted to be imposed on the former leaders of the Zaibatsu?

Mr. Lloyd: In this case this undertaking has been incorporated in the agreement reached with the Bonn Government and will be legally enforced by them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Am I to understand from what my right hon. and learned Friend said that it will henceforth be the duty of the German Government to observe Herr Krupp's actions, and that if he in any way breaks the terms of the pledge they will take action in a German court against him?

Mr. Lloyd: We have no reason to believe that this undertaking will not be kept, but so long as Law 27 is operative it is the responsibility of the German Government to enforce the undertaking.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that until 1948 it would have been lawful for our authorities to have completely expropriated Herr Krupp's assets—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Why did you not do it?"]—and that this situation was only changed by the establishment of the West German Government? As the Minister states that he is restricted by the terms of Law 27 at the present time, may I ask whether he has studied Article 5, which provides that compensation should only be paid consistent with the objectives of this law, which it is specifically laid down in the Preamble should be to prevent Herr Krupp or any other of those gentlemen from ever regaining control of these industries, and, therefore, would legalise any refusal to pay compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: On the question of compensation, I should make it quite clear that after the decision of the American court it would have been open to the British Government or the High Commissioner to confiscate Herr Krupp's property in the British Zone. That position continued until 1951 and it is clearly not the fault of Her Majesty's present Government that that did not take place. As to Law 27, we are satisfied that that in fact gives us no option but to pay compensation in this case.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does the agreement contain no prohibition against Krupp entering into or carrying on these works in the armament industry? If so, have we no power to ask the West German Government to impose a prohibition themselves?

Mr. Lloyd: We hope that the problem of future manufacture of armaments will be dealt with by the European Defence Community. As to other spheres, such as ship building, engineering works and matters of that sort, there is no new restriction on what he may do.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister suggest to Dr. Adenauer that he should try to find means of preventing Herr Krupp buying up the German Press, as members of the firm of Krupp did after the First World War, with results disastrous to the security of the world?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, LONDON (ALIENS' VISAS)

Mr. S. Silverman (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refused visas to four women representatives of the Soviet Women's Anti-Fascist Committee and certain women representing the Polish Women's League and the All-China Women's Federation to attend as fraternal delegates the Annual Conference of the British National Assembly of Women on 8th March next and whether he will reconsider this decision.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The National Assembly of Women is engaged in the Soviet inspired campaign against the policy of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and as my right hon. and learned Friend explained, on the occasion of his refusal to allow foreign delegates to attend the similar meeting last year, he is not prepared to allow foreigners to come here to carry on this campaign under the colourable pretext of concern for the interests of women.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask the hon. Gentleman four short supplementary questions? First, is he not completely misinformed about the purpose of the National Assembly of Women which, so far as my information goes, has no connection whatever with any of the matters to which he has referred? Secondly, is not the meeting on 8th March a perfectly lawful meeting? Thirdly, are these people being refused visas solely on political grounds? Fourthly, was his right hon. and learned Friend aware, when he made this decision, that the Anti-Fascist Women's Committee is reported in our newspapers as having contributed, by collections among their members, the sum of £8,000 as part of the contribution of £90,000 which came into this country to our Flood Relief Fund? Does he think that in those circumstances we, as a great country, can accept their money with any grace and refuse them admission?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As regards the first question—whether I have not been misinformed about the purposes of this Assembly—I think that I can assure the

House that that is not so. Perhaps I shall be believed when I say that the Chairman of the National Assembly of Women is Mrs. Monica Felton. Writing in the "Daily Worker" about this body on 21st February, 1953, she said, among other things:
How they have worked for peace. A number of the delegates who went to the Viennese Peace Congress were Assembly members.
I think that the hon. Member will agree that that answers that question.
As regards the lawfulness of the proposed meeting, I think that it will be necessary to wait. Until the meeting is held it is purely hypothetical whether or not it will be lawful. On the third question, about the basis of the refusal, I think that I cannot do better than read what my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 31st July, 1952. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
The principle upon which I acted I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion. It is that I will not let people come into an artificially created body which under the guise of some harmless name is really an instrument of Soviet propaganda."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1664.]
As to the fourth question, these matters are decided on general principles. I hope and believe that all the people who contributed to the Flood Disaster Fund gave the money with a sincere desire to relieve distress and did not have any ulterior motive in doing so.

Mr. McGovern: So long as organisations are allowed in this country as perfectly legal organisations, can the hon. Gentleman say why permits are not being issued? Surely the same rule should apply to Marshal Tito as is to apply in this case. Is he aware that we hope that by means of contact with people outside we may modify their whole attitude towards this country and the West, and that we cannot go on with this policy of banning every person who applies for a visa to come into this country from a foreign country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member has not stated the policy very clearly. I read the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the policy which he was pursuing. That,


quite clearly, does not apply in the case of Marshal Tito, but I certainly think that it applies in the present case.

Mr. Nicholson: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in spite of the exceedingly grandiose title of this organisation, it represents only a fragment of the female population of this country?

Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly whether it is or it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to admit foreign Communists into this country? If it is not, can he say how they differentiate it from the policy behind the McCarran Act and behind Iron Curtain countries? If he believes that we live in a free country, will he not agree that the more foreign Communists see it the greater the propaganda value?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member again has not stated the policy fairly. Certain foreign Communists have been allowed in this country. The reason they are not allowed in this case is because of the nature of the organisation and of the meeting which they are seeking to attend.

Mr. Hale: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the question is not whether these organisations with grandiose and misleading names are Communist or not but whether the strength and power of democratic Britain will be injured more by letting in a few silly women or by ceasing to adhere to our tradition of liberty of speech and expression in respect of which it has always been a beacon of freedom throughout the world?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That seems to me to be entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. S. Silverman: On the question of the legality—[Interruption.] Do be quiet. If the Prime Minister wishes to intervene I will give way to him. Would the right hon. Gentleman like a jujube to keep him quiet?
With regard to the legality of this meeting—which the hon. Gentleman seemed not to know about—is he aware that this conference has been held annually in this country without objection for a great many years and that its legality may therefore be presumed? Secondly, will he say on what grounds the Home

Secretary presumes to exercise the prerogative which was conferred upon him—for the purpose of keeping criminals and similar people out of the country—in order to discriminate on purely political grounds in respect of meetings which are admitted to be lawful?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As regards the legality of the meeting, I have no reason to suppose that it will be other than legal, but what I have told the hon. Member is that I cannot say that it will necessarily be legal until I know what is its agenda. As regards the power under which the Home Secretary acts, that was debated in the House only a month or two ago, when there was a question of renewing the power under the Aliens Order. That is the power under which the Home Secretary is now acting.

Miss Lee: Does the hon. Gentleman know that his reply is disgraceful and shame-making and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not use the privilege of asking a supplementary question to make offensive remarks.

Miss Lee: I withdraw anything personal in my remark, provided that my point of view has been made clear. I would ask the Minister whether he can explain why he is so lacking in confidence in himself and his country, and if he is not aware that his decision is contrary to all the best standards of British civilisation?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That appears to be a matter of opinion, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am in no way lacking in certainty that this decision is a right one.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not know whether this is the right time to do it, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: There is a statement to come first. Mr. Birch.

Later—

Mr. Silverman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely.
the abuse by the Home Secretary of his discretionary powers in order to interfere with


freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by the National Assembly of Women at their annual conference next Sunday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the abuse by the Home Secretary of his discretionary powers in order to interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by the National Assembly of Women at their annual conference next Sunday.
I cannot find that this is within the terms of the Standing Order. The control of aliens has been vested in the Home Secretary and this action of refusal of visas, however the hon. Member may describe it, is within the ordinary operation of the law and cannot come within Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is in order to debate your Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to debate my Ruling.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I was about to submit a point of order to you when the Prime Minister interrupted in order to anticipate it. I want to ask you whether you will consider, in relation to the Ruling which you have just given, the consideration that no question of the operation of law is involved in this matter at all. It is purely—[Interruption.] It is not for the Prime Minister to take this point. He has never attempted to accept a Ruling in his life.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to treat this matter calmly. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Silverman: It is very difficult to put it against a barrage of continual interruption. I will put it again and I hope that this time I shall not be interrupted.
The point which I was putting to you was this—and I can put it very briefly: whether you have considered that the matter involved in this Question and Motion is not a matter of the operation of law at all but purely a question of an administrative decision taken within his Department by the Home Secretary. It

cannot be denied, I suppose, that it is urgent, since the conference takes place next Sunday, nor that it is of public importance. Since it is purely a matter of administration and not of law, I respectfully submit that it is within the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: I have carefully considered the point of order which the hon. Member has submitted to me. I considered it in advance before I came into the Chamber today, to make sure that I was right. I have thought this matter over carefully and I have reached the conclusion which I have stated. We must pass on.

KOREA (MILITARY SITUATION)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement on the military operations in Korea. Since my statement in October last there has been little change in the situation and there is not much of interest to report.
The House will recall that at the time of the last statement the enemy had fallen back on the defensive after delivering a series of bitter attacks; in some of them they had committed whole regiments; and the attacks were supported by an unprecedented volume of enemy artillery and mortar fire.
Since the autumn, small enemy attacks have continued, but they have never been developed beyond battalion strength. Most of them are platoon and company attacks. They have been mainly directed against hilltop positions in advance of our front line. But they have gained no territorial success whatever. At the same time, the volume of enemy artillery and mortar fire has declined sharply after the exceptionally heavy firing in the autumn—for example, some 150,000 rounds were fired in February as against about 650,000 in October.
The enemy's most persistent endeavours have continued to be directed against the central section of the front. The determined defence of the positions in this area reflects high credit on the South Korean divisions which have held firm against this unremitting pressure. On our side,


active patrolling continues and occasional local probing attacks. Each night many patrols from our side go out right across the front.
The lull in activity has not been altogether unexpected after the intensity of the local attacks in the autumn. The lower rate of firing means that the enemy have probably been able to build up reserves of ammunition. Thus it is quite possible that they will resume their powerful attacks against limited objectives before long. There is no sign that any major offensive is impending, but, as I have said before, it is always possible for the enemy to launch one with little warning. Nevertheless, we have every confidence that the United Nations Forces would be able to prevent a major breakthrough.
The enemy strength is about the same as it was in October. His ground forces remain at something over one million men, although these troops can, of course, be reinforced with further divisions from China. Communist armour and artillery have not increased significantly since October, but the enemy have been busy preparing duplicate gun sites to permit the rapid re-grouping of artillery.
Our United Nations Forces have been strengthened by the formation of two more South Korean divisions and many more South Koreans are being trained so that further divisions can be formed when the equipment is made available. In fact, about two-thirds of the front line is now held by South Korean troops.
Although enemy pressure was less persistent in the western sector of the front, a number of sharp actions have been fought there and in several of these our Commonwealth Division was engaged. In the middle of November, a series of three attacks was launched against the position known as The Hook, held by our 29th Brigade. The largest of the three attacks was delivered at, two-company strength and temporarily occupied our positions until driven out by a determined counter-attack an hour or so later.
The United Nations Command continue to make the fullest possible use of their air strength to weaken the enemy and, in good weather, the land based

aircraft, including our own and Commonwealth squadrons, fly roughly 1,000 sorties a day.
The major achievements of our air forces are that they have driven the enemy air force from the airfields of North Korea into his Manchurian sanctuary, and continue to hold him out; their interdiction effort is such that the enemy supply rate is restricted to a level which, though adequate for static and limited objective operations, we believe to be inadequate to maintain the momentum of a sustained large-scale offensive.
The enemy air strength in Manchuria remains about the same. A number of twin-jet light bombers called the IL 28 have made their appearance; but they have not been used operationally.
The carrier-borne air forces operating off the east and west coasts continue their day-to-day interdiction programme. Early in November, the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Ocean" was relieved by H.M.S. "Glory," the latter's third operational tour.
The United Nations casualties since the war began, including those of the South Koreans, now amount to 380,000. About 60,000 men have been killed. Since the last statement, total casualties have been roughly 30,000 of which some 8,000 have been killed. United Kingdom casualties since October have been about 80 killed and over 300 wounded and missing. Other Commonwealth casualties have been about 200.
Unfortunately, the present attitude of the Communists offers little immediate hope of putting a stop to these continuing casualties, but Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything in their power to bring about a settlement on fair terms.

Mr. Shinwell: I feel sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information contained in the statement he has just made. To begin with, may I ask him two short questions? One arises from that part of his statement which deals with a lull in activities in Korea. Is it not remarkable—and can he possibly explain it—that in spite of a lull in activities and less fighting in the line casualties have reached a total of 30,000, including 8,000 killed, since his last statement, which was made


a few months ago? Does that denote a lull in activities? Does it not require some explanation?
Secondly, can he explain why it is that there is difficulty with regard to the formation of additional South Korean divisions, which General Eisenhower said were very desirable in order to relieve the other United Nations troops to some extent? The hon. Gentleman said—and I noted it—that the equipment was not available. Is it not somewhat alarming that the equipment should not be available for the purpose of creating these formations?

Mr. Birch: May I first answer the second part of the question? As I said, two-thirds of the front is at present held by the South Koreans. That represents a very rapid build up of their strength indeed, and that build up means that arms are coming in all the time and that training continues. At the moment two divisions are being formed which are not yet completely armed, but there is every reason to suppose that they will be armed in the not very distant future. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the continuation of casualties. Of course, although firing has decreased, it is still heavy, and if a pitcher is taken to the well too often, sooner or later it breaks. This long steady war cannot be carried on without casualties occurring.

Mr. Shinwell: I must say that I do not regard those explanations as very satisfactory, but we cannot debate the matter now. There will be another occasion when we can debate it. May 1 ask the hon. Gentleman about the. concluding part of his statement, when he seemed to indicate that, while the Communists had been obstructive and had not been prepared to consider the possibility of bringing this unhappy affair to a conclusion, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government would lose no opportunity of adopting measures, other than those which have been adopted already, to bring it to an end? Can he say what the Government have in mind, apart from the prisoner-of-war issue?

Mr. Birch: What I said was that we would do everything in our power which would bring hostilities to an end. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have supported the Indian Resolution, which

now holds the field, and we shall continue to take any opportunity which offers to end the hostilities by negotiation.

Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say to what Governments the enemy forces have responsibilities?

Mr. Birch: I think my hon. Friend had better address that question to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister tell us how many of these casualties were men or boys of 19; how many of them were called up in February and sent to the Far East in July; and what is the percentage of our soldiers in Korea who are National Service men shoved into the Army by means of forced labour and who would come home tomorrow if they had an opportunity?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Dr. Stross: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question about the light bombers to which he referred, which have made their appearance but have not been involved in operations? Is there any evidence so far that the enemy have used bombers at all to drop bombs?

Mr. Birch: It is a difficult position for them because we hold the mastery of the air in Korea. They bombed some islands, and when their bombers went out they were all shot down. They have not been able to operate so far. That is really the point. They have bombers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the——

Mr. J. Hudson: Mr. J. Hudson rose——

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend wish to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has raised a point of order. I must ask him to state it.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I understood you to say that you had called another hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire raised a point of order. He must state his point of order when it arises.

Mr. Hughes: My point of order is this, I have asked a very definite question about the number of Scottish soldiers of 19 who have been sent to Korea. In view of the fact that we have had no attempt at an answer at all to a question which affects the people of this country very gravely, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. J. Hudson: Mr. J. Hudson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given that the matter will he raised on the Adjournment.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

JEWELLERY INDUSTRY, BIRMINGHAM

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the prospects and problems of the Birmingham jewellery industry, and move a Resolution.

PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION (POOR CHILDREN)

Dr. King: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the fact that the ancient public schools of this country have departed from their original purpose of providing education for poor children as well as rich, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)

Mr. Powell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 20th March, I shall call attention to the relationship between the local health authorities and the National Health Service, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, lines 25, 27, 29, 32 and 45; and Clause 32, page 29, line 22, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Sandys.—[Mr. Sandys.]

4.13 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 32, line 36, line 41, line 43, and line 44, and page 6, line 4. standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. G. R. Strauss.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES.)

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, after "producers," to insert "and such other persons."
I should like to suggest that in conjunction with this Amendment we should consider, at the same time, the next five Amendments standing in my name.

The Chairman: I think that is perfectly satisfactory to the Committee.

Mr. Sandys: During an earlier debate in the Committee stage the Opposition moved an Amendment the purpose of which was to empower the Minister, if so recommended by the Iron and Steel Board, to undertake the provision of facilities for the development of overseas raw materials for the iron and steel industry in the event of the Board's having failed to secure provision of those facilities by the industry itself. That Amendment resulted in an interesting debate, and the general sense of the Committee was in favour of a provision of that kind being included in the Bill. Replying to the debate I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that we would


examine this matter between then and the Report stage, and that we would then introduce an Amendment to give effect to the substance of that proposal.
The reason why I have had to move that the Bill should be recommitted for the consideration of these Amendments is that it does, or could in the event of this power being used, increase the expenditure which might be incurred by the Government. I hope that the Amendments which I have tabled meet the substance of the Opposition's proposal and meet the wishes which were expressed in all parts of the Committee during that earlier debate.
I should, however like to draw the attention of the Committee to three differences between the Amendments which I am proposing and the Opposition Amendment which was moved earlier. The first is that the new Amendments are confined to the provision of iron ore. We very carefully considered the desirability of including in these Amendments provision for the development overseas not only of iron ore, which is, of course, the basic requirement of the industry, but also of manganese, tungsten, and certain other alloying metals, some of which were mentioned during the earlier debate; but after very careful consideration we came to the conclusion that those other metals are used to such a very large extent by industries other than the iron and steel industry that it really would not be justifiable to include a provision for their development within the scope of this Bill. Iron ore is, of course, in a class by itself. and we felt that it was better to concentrate on the real essentials. That is why we have confined these Amendments to the provision of iron ore from overseas sources.
The second point of difference is that these Amendments cover to some extent a wider field than the original Opposition Amendment; they cover in particular the provision of facilities for transportation outside the United Kingdom. We envisage, if it should be necessary for the Government to undertake the development of iron ore resources overseas, possibly in some undeveloped country that it may well be necessary for them to provide in addition to the actual work of mining and quarrying, rail facilities between the mine and the sea; possibly to provide additional

handling facilities at the port, and possibly also to provide special cargo vessels for the transportation of the ore from those overseas countries to the United Kingdom. For those reasons we felt it right to include that in the Amendments.
The third point of difference is a drafting one, but nonetheless important. It is that the original Opposition Amendment did not amend the definition in Clause 32—as it has now become—of production facilities which, if left unamended, would not have covered mineral rights and property overseas which may become an essential part of overseas raw materials development.
Also, during the debate, I was particularly asked to ensure that in any Amendment I brought forward I would make sure that it did not specify that the Government must necessarily undertake by themselves the whole or any development scheme which might be contemplated; in other words, that the Government would be able either to undertake the whole or participate either with the industry in this country or with foreign or Commonwealth industries in some joint scheme for the exploitation and development of overseas iron ore resources.
Under the Amendments with which I am dealing the Government will, of course, be able to take their share, if such be the terms of the scheme envisaged, with the iron and steel industry in developing overseas raw material resources. They would also, under these Amendments, be able to participate with foreign interests in the development of overseas resources. It is on this last point that it was necessary for us to introduce the Amendment at line 45, which makes it possible for the Government to participate in a scheme of overseas development notwithstanding the fact that some part of the raw materials which are obtained as a result of that development do not go to the iron and steel industry in the United Kingdom.
I wish to stress that these powers which we are moving to include in the Bill for participation by the Government in overseas development are inserted as a precaution against the possible failure of the industry by its own efforts to assure the supply of raw materials for the iron and steel industry. Let me say straight


away that there is nothing in the present situation which gives cause for any fear or anxiety whatsoever that the industry is not at the moment doing all that is necessary to assure its supplies of raw materials from overseas. As I explained in the earlier debate, the industry have entered into important and far-reaching contracts and agreements, involving countries in all parts of the world, for the supply of iron ore over a period of years. I have no reason to suppose that the Government could do any better than the industry are now doing in this important respect.
I wish to emphasise also that, notwithstanding any Amendment which may be introduced into the Bill, the responsibility for providing raw materials, whether by purchase or by development overseas, continues and will continue to rest fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the industry itself. These Amendments are not in any way intended to imply that the Government wish to become a kind of milch cow to which the industry can look for finance for overseas development. The Government would only participate if this should prove absolutely inevitable and necessary.
I wish also to stress that if the Committee approve of this Amendment we are not in any sense giving a blank cheque to this or any future Government to engage in overseas development schemes without Parliamentary approval. Any money which may fall to be expended in respect of these overseas development schemes will, of course, have to be voted by Parliament in the ordinary way through the annual Departmental Estimates. Therefore, the full and complete Parliamentary control over finance is quite unaffected by the introduction of these Amendments.
I hope that with these few words of explanation I may have satisfied the Committee that these Amendments meet the wishes expressed on all sides during our earlier debate and that this series of Amendments will be adopted.

Mr. Austen Albu: It would be shabby if I were not to welcome from this side of the Committee the very full way in which the Minister has incorporated by this Amendment a great part of what we were asking for in the

Amendment we moved during the Committee stage, and which received unanimous support. We particularly welcome the care with which the Amendments have been drafted, and especially the inclusion of the facilities for transport.
I do not feel entirely satisfied, however, about the question of alloying metals. I fully agree with the Minister that these metals are used in a variety of other industries and for a variety of other purposes. Nevertheless, they are of crucial importance in steel manufacture today. One could say that modern engineering would not be possible without them. It is quite possible that some of these metals may be in partial supply, or that new sources of supply may be much more difficult to discover and exploit than are sources of iron ore.
I think we would be happier if there were some safeguard that these questions were being fully looked at. It may be that this is really the responsibility of the Minister of Materials and that he has his eye continually on these problems, but I cannot quite see, in view of the extremely qualified way in which the Minister moved the Amendment, why he could not have included them. As the Minister pointed out, it will not be possible to carry out the principles of these Amendments without coming before the House for powers to do so and for the necessary financial sanction. I should have thought, therefore, that it would have been safer to have included these alloying metals among the other raw materials.
Another slight doubt is also raised in my mind by the extremely guarded way in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment. We fully understand—it would be ridiculous for us to expect otherwise from the party opposite—that they expect the industry to look after itself in the management of raw materials, and we do not argue on that. What is in my mind is that this is not just a question of dealing with a sudden shortage. When a sudden shortage arises it may be too late. This is a question of fairly long-term planning—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my using the word. We must have some idea of the requirements of the industry over a


fairly long period. Development of this nature is, I think I am right in saying, a fairly long-term job.
4.30 p.m.
I hope that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's present Government to refrain from taking any action except that which will lock the door only after the horse has gone; and that this Amendment does not mean, and those who have put forward this Amendment do not mean, that the Board would not have the power to propose action to the Minister, and the Minister would not have power to take action, if he wanted to do so, well in advance of the shortage.
I would not have had these doubts but for the words of the Minister in introducing the Amendment. I hope that my doubts can be allayed. Apart from that, we on this side of the Committee welcome the Amendments, and we are glad that the Minister has been able to include them.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: To keep to horses, this is a gift horse and it is proverbially ungracious to look gift horses in the mouth. One may perhaps be allowed to do so for the purpose of seeing if they have any teeth. It is in that spirit that I consider the change which the Minister has made, and which he so clearly explained to us, with regard to what he called the alloying metals.
I can see that if there were any general obligation and if the powers that are sought in this Clause were to be used in normal circumstances there might be the difficulty which he foreshadowed. But I find it rather difficult to see why tungsten and these other materials should be excluded, having regard to what the Clause itself provides. First, the Board have to consult for a very general purpose and for that very general purpose they have to take into consideration iron ore. Surely they ought also to consider any other materials which are necessary for what we call the iron and steel industry, which is, in fact, a number of industries lumped together, and for some of which these alloying materials are absolutely vital. I do not speak as an expert, but I should have thought that these materials applied to most of the industries nowadays.
Next, when they have so consulted, they have to report to the Minister that additional production facilities are required and that they cannot get them by means of consultation, and even then the Minister is not bound to act—he is given power to act, and only with the approval of the Treasury. Really, these are the very last resources to meet what may be a very urgent situation.
I should like to put this to the Minister. Supposing that, after consultation, it was discovered that the shortage of tungsten—I am taking tungsten as an instance—was really acute and held up the efficient, economic and adequate supply of steel products, and, thereafter, the Board reported to the Minister that more tungsten was required in the national interest, or it might appear to the Minister to be in the national interest that more tungsten was required—and all this would precede any action under the Clause—and they could not get it in any other way.
If all that happened, is the Minister to be debarred from taking steps under this Clause to make up that supply of tungsten simply because the tungsten could or might be used largely in some other industry? Is it really intended that, because of lack of statutory powers, the whole iron and steel industry might be held up for lack of one of these alloys? The Minister said that these were not intended to be other than extraordinary powers to meet a real emergency. I should have thought that such a real emergency might arise in connection with these alloys, just as much as in connection with iron ore. From my slight knowledge of the subject, I would agree that that is perhaps a little less possible; but if it does arise, surely power ought to be taken to deal with it.
Surely there are more than sufficient safeguards in the Bill against any misuse of the power, and Tory doctrine, as I understand it, is preserved in almost complete inviolability. Surely it is not to be more limited by tungsten than by iron ore? These notions do not take so much regard for the type of material as some of us might if we had it thrown at us. I hope that the Minister will consider that point and let us know whether he can consider once more putting into the mouth of this gift horse just one more


tooth [An HON. MEMBER: "Tungsten."] Yes, a tungsten tooth.
The next point is quite a small one. I really do not understand why this Amendment to Clause 32 is needed. This is an addition to a definition and the definition refers to premises, and so on, used—I will quote the words—for
any activity … in the Third Schedule or … of any incidental activity.
It does not say a word about that activity being confined to this country. The Third Schedule does not say a word about it either.
According to the Schedule it is necessary to limit the activities in that context to what is carried on in Great Britain, but if we do not include such limitations they would obviously apply anywhere. In those circumstances, I do not quite see the need for the drafting Amendment. It seems to me to do once more what I have already objected to, and limit the thing particularly to iron ore.
No one who sits for Kettering underestimates the importance of iron ore or the damage that can be caused to the countryside by mining. We have it well in view and we almost smell it. I would not exclude tungsten and the rest simply because they come to the steel works more quietly and with less demonstrative damage than does Northamptonshire iron ore.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I should like to add my word of appreciation to the Minister for bringing forward this Amendment to take care of the points raised earlier, to which I gave some support. I think that the arguments advanced now for including the other alloys as well as iron ore are largely theoretical, although I am prepared to agree that they are as vital or, indeed, more so than iron ore itself.
The reason that I think there was substance in the original point, namely, that this provision should be extended to raw materials, was that the Board would be encouraging people to expand their plant, and would in part be assuming responsibility for the expansion of plant in this country; and that unless they were a party to means of providing that expanding plant with raw materials, they would be inhibited in the discharge of their responsibility.
It was because finance might well play a very large part in the provision of iron ore for the expanding plant, as distinct from the other minerals, that I felt it right and proper to encourage the idea of the Government having these powers to help in the provision of raw materials. It was not so much because one thought that the industry would be so fast asleep as not to know of the need to provide for raw materials for a plant that they were going to build, but that they might not have the resources to ensure that an adequate flow of iron ore would follow, because the financing of the provision of iron ore is, obviously, a much greater matter than the financing of the provision of the very much smaller quantities of the other products.
Therefore, although in theory it is not too difficult to advance a case for saying that what is good for iron ore should be good for the others, the distinction is one which reasonably ought to be made between the two: namely, that iron ore should be specified on account of the financial considerations involved, which do not apply to the other materials. Although I do not feel particularly strongly about the matter, I should have thought that the Minister was right to confine the Amendment in the way that he has done.

Mr. Jack Jones: While joining in the adulation of the Minister for bringing forward the Amendments, I suggest that he has not gone at all far enough. The Amendment provides for the event of the industry failing to furnish itself with sufficient iron ore, and the Minister is taking power for the Board to procure additional iron ore resources and supplies. Iron ore by itself is useless. It would be a hopeless proposition to bring an extra two million tons of iron ore into the country without bringing in and making certain that all the other ingredients were available. It would be rather like a housewife who fills her pantry with flour but has no salt, lard, currants, raisins or anything else.
Steel cannot be made with the additional iron ore unless there are with it all the other necessary ingredients—manganese, for instance. If any expert on the other side of the Committee can tell me of one known specification of steel which does not include a fairly high proportion of manganese, I should like to


know what it is. Manganese is not produced in this country. It comes primarily from Russia, India and elsewhere. Unless the Minister takes powers for the Board to provide themselves pro rata with the necessary quantity of molybdenum, nickel, chromium and the rest—if I had time to go into detail I could give a list as long as my arm—the provision of the iron ore by itself will simply mean bringing into the country material which will be stocked and cannot be used.
If the Minister is forced into the position—we hope that he will not be, but he needs to take the power in case he should be—of procuring further supplies of iron ore, he should at the same time make certain that he has the power to get all the necessary ingredients to turn that iron ore into steel. If, when I was working, my boss had called upon me to turn a huge pile of iron ore into steel, I should have regarded him as a candidate for admission to a lunatic asylum.
We are grateful to the Minister for going so far as he has done, but he has not gone far enough to provide himself technically with the wherewithal to do what he aims to do; that is, to offset the failure of the industry to serve the public interest by creating sufficient steel, of a sufficient quality and at the right price.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Member is perfectly right with regard to manganese, but in the main it comes in the form of iron ore. If the Minister interprets "iron ore" as iron ore containing manganese, we are well protected in respect of the most important of the elements which we have been discussing.

Mr. Jones: That is an important interjection. If the Minister is prepared to submit that the term "iron ore" includes all the other metal-producing ores that one can think of, we shall be extremely happy. Manganese ore is not iron ore; it is the ore that makes manganese, which in turn gives steel its resilient power. In my time I have thrown many thousand tons of manganese into steel, and I should know a little about it. If the Minister is prepared once again to accept the useful interjection from a specialist on his own side of the Committee, that the term "iron ore" should include manganese, chromium, nickel and the rest, we should be extremely happy to accept the Amendment as it stands.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that, by and large, the Amendment has met with the general acceptance of the Committee, and that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) regards it as a gift horse. It is not the only gift horse that he and his hon. Friends have received from us during the Committee stage; and if it has teeth of iron ore and not tungsten, the hon. and learned Member must make the best of it.
I should like, first, to say a word about the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), who has throughout taken a great interest in this question. I am sorry if I gave him the impression that, should the necessity arise, the Government would be in any way hesitant or half-hearted in assuming the responsibilities which the Bill will place upon them. This is a long-term problem, and I am glad that hon. Members opposite are looking upon the activities of the Board in that way. One or two of the remarks which they made in earlier debates rather suggested that they thought it might be merely a passing phase.
We accept, of course, that if the industry, the Board and the Government are effectively to discharge their duties under the Clause, a long view must be taken, and they must be prepared to anticipate shortage and not wait until it has overtaken them.

Mr. Jack Jones: The Minister's remarks about taking a long view are quite correct. Whoever is responsible for future procurement, we are bound to take a long view. Even though Socialism were back in the saddle in six months' time, we should want the Board to have made the necessary preparations to ensure that we made a success of re-nationalisation.

Mr. Sandys: I do not envisage the necessity of the Government intervening in this matter in the next six months. If the hon. Member is in office in six months' time, he will be able to look at it himself.
To return to the tungsten-tooth gift horse, I recognise that one can always gild the lily. One can extend the field and scope—

Mr. Julian Snow: One does not gild teeth, but paints them.

Mr. Sandys: Presumably, therefore, I should have said "paint the lily."
We carefully considered whether to include within the scope of this Clause the more important alloying metals which are used in the iron and steel industry. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is quite correct in saying that these are an essential element in steel-making, but we cannot necessarily undertake to include within the scope of the Bill every factor, however important, which plays some part in the industry.
Tungsten has been particularly mentioned by all hon. Members who have spoken. About 50 per cent. of the tungsten which we use in this country goes into the making of iron and steel. The problem, therefore, is not so much one of supply as of allocation as between the various users. We would be going a very long way indeed if we were to make the iron and steel industry and the Board responsible in this constitutional and statutory way for the supply of tungsten for the country as a whole when only half of it is used in steel-making.
I remind the Committee that, when the previous Government set up the Ministry of Materials, they decided to leave the iron and steel industry as part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply; but they entrusted to the Ministry of Materials the responsibility for wolfram, from which tungsten is produced. It is a moot point whether tungsten is primarily used for iron and steel making or for other industrial purposes.
After serious consideration we came to the conclusion that it was better not to extend the scope of the Bill so far. However, as I indicated in the earlier debate which we had on this subject, the Government are at liberty at any time—as, for example, in the Volta aluminium scheme—to come to the House and propose some development scheme which would ensure supplies of tungsten if difficulties should arise.
Finally, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering expressed surprise that we had thought it necessary to introduce an Amendment to Clause 32 in which is provided a definition for the phrase "produc-

tion facilities." I do not think he is quite clear about the position. What we are doing in introducing this Amendment is extending the definition of "production facilities"—which at present covers only premises, plant or machinery—to include the acquisition of property and mining rights, which we felt was necessary. We might otherwise have found that some important scheme was approved but that we just had not the power to go completely through with it and acquire the mining rights. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 27, leave out "by iron and steel producers," and insert "(a)."
In line 29, at end, insert:
and
(b) of such production facilities outside Great Britain for or in connection with the quarrying or mining of iron ore for use in the iron and steel industry as may be required for the purpose aforesaid, including facilities for the transport outside Great Britain or the importation into Great Britain of such iron ore.
In line 32, after "Britain," insert:
or additional facilities such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, after "for," to insert:
or that certain existing production facilities in Great Britain are not so used as to promote.
In discussing this Amendment, it might be convenient to refer also to the subsequent five Amendments: In page 5, line 36, after "are," insert:
or that the better use of certain existing production facilities in Great Britain is.
In line 41, at end, insert:
or, as the case may be, the better use of those existing production facilities.
In line 43, after "those," insert:
additional facilities or use those existing.
In line 44, after the first "those," insert:
additional facilities or the use of those existing.
In page 6, line 4, after "use," insert:
or that any existing production facilities in Great Britain ought in the national interest to be more efficiently used or used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present.


These Amendments are very closely inter-related. I think the Minister will agree that at first glance they look like a printer's jigsaw puzzle, but I have no doubt that he has got the full text in terms of our proposed Amendments so that he can fully understand the implications of all the insertions which we propose. These insertions are very important to hon. Members on this side of the Committee as a principle. Indeed, I think we can say they are vital because they are designed to deal with what we consider to be an omission.
As I see it, Clause 4 provides for production facilities. Amongst the facilities vital to the national interest but seemingly forgotten by the Bill are the existing plant and equipment which will be in operation when the Bill becomes an Act, but which are not pulling their weight at that time in the interests of maximum production, which in the main could be attributed to inefficiency and bad management on the part of the people controlling the firm. Our Amendments are designed to include these within the supervisory capacity of the Board, which is at present limited to the new facilities under the Clause and to the acquisition of plant and equipment which might otherwise fall into disuse.
This Clause without our Amendments covers only new facilities and those which it is necessary to keep going in the national interests but which would otherwise be closed down. The Clause omits entirely existing plant and machinery which may be inefficiently run or badly managed, and it is that section of the industry with which these Amendments are concerned. It is vital that such facilities should be included in the Bill on precisely the same terms as either the new facilities or the plant which may fall into disuse, which are now covered by the Bill. The national interest demands this step, otherwise the steel production drive may be hopelessly retarded, because whilst we have confidence in many aspects of the steel industry, there are sometimes revealed to us employers in whom we have no confidence at all, who have neither social conscience nor an interest in the wider aspects of the industry.
What is the use of building new blast furnaces and steel works if we lose on the swings of inefficient existing plant

what is gained on the roundabout of new installations? That is a very pertinent question which ought to be answered by the Government, because in spending a lot of money on new installations there is a danger of forgetting that which exists but is being run inefficiently as a result of bad management. What is the use of creating new plant and renovating plant which may fall into disuse and be closed down if we do not deal with the existing plant that is working inefficiently because of bad management?
As I read through this Clause, its smoke-screen seems to be the words "in the national interest." I wonder what they really mean. To me they mean nothing at all. If they mean that manufacturers who are indifferent and apathetic, who have no sense of the value of their contribution to the general wellbeing of the industry or to the national interest, are allowed, without any form of control at all, to undermine the maximum possible production of this industry, without any challenge from the Board, the Minister or the Government, then my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was perfectly right when at our last Sitting he called attention to the fact that millions and millions of pounds may be spent on new installations and new plant when we might get the same type of production, with some form of control over existing machinery, at much less cost.
Unless an Amendment of this character is inserted in the Clause it will be a misuse of capital and of public money to carry the penny-wise and pound-foolish conception contained in the Bill through to its logical conclusion. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) in his place. We have appreciated very much his contributions to debates from time to time on the denationalisation of steel. I want to quote what he said during the Committee stage. I will read the words:
Any stubborn or obdurate firm which refused to co-operate would be virtually put out of business in a short space of time and its competitors would develop at its expense." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1953: Vol. 511, c. 473.]
5.0 p.m.
Is that the conception of the Bill? I do not think it is the hon. Gentleman's conception, if it is closely analysed. His idea is that competitive elements will drive


an existing plant out of business if it is not being run efficiently or is showing signs of bad management. I would put two arguments forward against that idea. The first is that it may take so long before the inefficient firm goes out of business that it will have done irreparable damage to the industry in the meantime. The second argument is that many firms have not in the past been altogether loyal to the industry of which they were a part. I am not speaking of the "bad old days" that we are constantly referring to, but to the very recent past.
I could refer to the scrap position and say that many of those people did not play the game with the industry in regard to scrap. If they will not play the game in regard to scrap, it may be that they will not play it in regard to the general national interest that is involved in the Clause.

Mr. Robson Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Member would elaborate the case he is making in regard to the use of scrap. It is a very serious thing to say.

Mr. Winterbottom: I say that many have held scrap from time to time to the advantage of themselves. The hon. Member for Esher was connected with the Federation; he probably knows of cases where supplies were limited by reason of the fact that people knew what was happening. If there is that mentality, although it may be found in only a small percentage of manufacturers in the industry, we must seek some means of protection for the national interest.
The industry will have to face the problem of inefficiency. The problem was covered in the old Iron and Steel Act but it is not covered by the Bill. We shall have to face the problem of co- relationship in the industry, not merely in regard to what was discussed on this Clause in Committee, namely, amalgamation, but methods of production. We shall not only have to develop the industry's capital, but to make the industry more efficient. Where the inefficiency is due to bad management someone will have to take power to check abuse. That power is not in the Bill, so we hope that the Minister will accept our Amendment and add it to the Bill for the benefit of our national life as a whole.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I wish to give two main reasons why I support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom). The first is that we cannot afford at any time to have inefficient plant in existence, whether in the steel industry or in any other industry. We ought to be as ruthless as we possibly can to get rid of inefficiency, whether in nationalised or in
private concerns. Therefore, by not accepting this Amendment, the Minister would be omitting to take a weapon to himself which would enable him to get rid of inefficiency in the iron and steel industry.
The other reason is that when the industry is sold back to private enterprise over a long period, and if it is all to be sold, it is clear that any particular firm must have in its possession a good part and a bad part of the industry, if the State is not to be left with that which is wholly bad. It would be wrong to accept the argument used in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary that the test of efficiency will be the profit-and-loss account, and that if a firm is showing a loss it will be because it is inefficient and the shareholders will insist upon improvements being brought about.
Of course, if a firm has a good part and a bad part of the industry, that will not be a test of the efficiency of the firm, because the good parts can be used to make tremendous profit to balance the bad parts which are run at a loss. Merely looking at the balance sheet of the company will not reveal the inefficiency of that concern. It is absolutely right to have an Amendment like this put into the Bill because it will enable the Board to put their finger on the inefficient part and possibly to do something about it.
It occurs to me that the Minister has no intention of making use of the powers in the Clause. I shall be very surprised if he or the Government set up a new steel industry to compete with the old, or take powers unto themselves, or lease powers to others, or whatever it may be, to modernise and extend the existing steel industry. With all the reservations which are in the Clause, I am certain that the position will not arise under which the Minister will have to contemplate taking that action.


We are left with the one thing that he can do quite easily, which is to see whether existing industry is inefficient and to take steps to put it right. That is a far more common-sense approach than leaving matters to profit and loss or waiting until a firm has actually gone out of existence or is likely to do so, before action is taken. I believe that in the next few years we shall need all the steel we can get from new and old plants. It is obvious that we must have them at their most efficient. I therefore hope that the Minister will revise his views and will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendments, which show a complete clash of principle between hon. Gentlemen on that side and those who sit on this side of the Committee. The question has been posed how to get rid of inefficiency. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think it can be done by setting up a Government Board or Department, or by some sort of Government control. On this side of the Committee we believe that if there is inefficiency the people to root it out are those on the spot, the management and those responsible for management.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: How if the management are inefficient?

Mr. Roberts: They are the first people. In Sheffield, the men are particularly proud of the management and of the efficiency of the steel industry of Sheffield. If there is a bad management the next line of defence is that the company board itself will deal with the management. If the company board does not deal with the management, the shareholders will deal with the company board.
I believe that is the right way to set about solving the problem. We want to see pride in the industry among those people who are engaged in it. From my experience, I believe sincerely that there is a great deal of pride among the work-people, among the management and among those who manage the management to see that the industry is efficient.

Mr. Chetwynd: If that is so, why is it that in the industry before the war, and even today, it has been allowed to get into a state where 30 per cent. is obsolete?

Mr. Roberts: I do not want to go into that now, because it would take me a long time to develop the argument. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that before the war the industry had production capacity greater than the demand made upon it. He knows that under the Socialist and Liberal Governments unemployment rose to 40 per cent. and that it came down as a result of Conservative policy. [Interruption.] Those are the facts.
Now I want to turn to the Amendment. The hon. Member spoke about the inefficient sections of the industry. At present, a great part of it is under a nationalised board. Is he suggesting that under that nationalised board there is inefficiency? If there is, what is the good of putting the board back again to watch its own inefficiency?

Mr. Winterbottom: We are asking for a board to watch over the industry which shall have power to deal with existing plant and, where inefficiency is revealed, power to act against the inefficient management.

Mr. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the inefficiency is revealed at present? If he intervenes again in this debate, I hope he will tell us. I believe that under the Board as previously constituted, and under my right hon. Friend, the industry has been carried on as well as it could be under a nationalised board.

Mr. Winterbottom: Mr. Winterbottom rose——

Mr. Roberts: I cannot be interrupted any more on this point.

Mr. Jack Jones: On the question of inefficiency in Sheffield— —

Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot be interrupted further on this point. There is obviously a clash of principle between both sides of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite have one way of dealing with inefficiency and I hope we have another.
I hope that the Minister will not accept the principle put forward from the other side of the Committee of control by a board in order to produce inefficiency. We believe that the right way is to leave the control in the hands of those who know and who are on the spot. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment and the implications behind it.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I was rather surprised by the prescription for efficiency given by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). It seems that all one has to do is to set up a limited liability company and that, if once there is a board of directors and shareholders, they will see that the management is efficient. I suppose the various private companies and partnerships will take advantage of that suggestion and turn themselves into limited companies if that dictum has any relevance.
Obviously it is nonsense, because everyone knows that a shareholders' meeting in the case of most companies is an unsatisfactory way of exercising any control over the management of a business. In many cases the directors are there either with enough shareholdings of their own or with proxies in their pockets, to see that even if there is criticism they can see that it is not effective.
5.15 p.m.
I want to deal now with his serious reflection on the function of the Board in the Bill. If I understood aright, the hon. Member took the view that his right hon. Friend had been at fault in bringing in a board to supervise this industry. He made many references to the fact that it should be the men on the spot who should run the industry. I wonder whether there is a serious difference between the hon. Member for Heeley and his right hon Friend the Minister and the rest of his party on this point? I want to get it clearly from the Minister that he stands for the Board and for the need of it to supervise the industry.
While I do not want to enter into controversy as to the efficiency or otherwise of certain of the nationalised steel works at the moment, I would point out to the hon. Member that the Board envisaged in this Bill is to cover a much wider field of the steel industry than the present Iron and Steel Corporation. It is the firms which will be brought under the supervision of the new Board that we have in mind when talking of the inefficiency that needs to be considered, at any rate, if this Bill is to last for a long time, as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to delude themselves that it may. If therefore, it governs the industry, we must make provision for all kinds of eventualities. Surely no one will be so bold as to say that at no time

in the future there will not be one steel works or iron foundry that will be inefficient.
For those reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down these Amendments and I ask that they shall receive the full consideration of the Committee.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: The bon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) in a pleasant way, which was suitable between hon. Members representing the same great steel town, on suggesting the setting up of limited liability companies as a prescription for efficiency.
What is the prescription of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It is to set up a public board. We have had that before. Private enterprise did not produce sufficient food for us so a public board was set up. It was an infallible prescription for efficiency but, as a result, the country lost £36 million. Private enterprise hens were thought to be at fault and a large public enterprise was set up to produce public enterprise eggs, again at enormous loss. The answer is that no particular kind of organisation can be certain of producing efficiency, and certainly not a public board.
The difference of conception between the two sides of the Committee is quite simple. All of us here have our eyes on the efficiency of this great industry which we believe to be of importance for the survival not only of the industry itself, but of the country. The prescription of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, what we believe is fundamentally necessary to produce efficiency, is to pay someone to do it. If one makes it pay a person to be efficient, he is more likely to be efficient. If his profit is likely to be larger if he is more efficient, he is more likely to be more efficient. We do not believe that he can be made more efficient by appointing a central board or bureaucrat to tell him how to do his job.

Mr. Mitchison: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman answer one simple question? Let us suppose that in this industry there is a large plant employing many workers and that it is inefficiently run. What is to be done about that under this Bill?

Mr. Simon: What is to be done in the case of that enterprise is exactly what is


done in the case of other enterprises in the country: ultimately, the persons whose profits are not sufficiently large, owing to the inefficiency, will stir up the management and it will become more efficient. If, however, there is merely a public board, there will be no incentive except, of course, the great public spirit, the great administrative efficiency, which we associate with our Civil Service. But surely none of us would say that a Civil Service, valuable though it is in its proper sphere, would give us the commercial aggressiveness required to develop our industry under competitive conditions.

Mr. Snow: How can the hon. and learned Gentleman deploy that argument if he considers the pre-war history of the industry? If profitability is to be the yardstick of efficiency, how can he say that it is efficient to rationalise the industry, reduce its production and throw thousands out of work?

Mr. Simon: I was going to deal specifically with the point of the pre-war history which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).
The answer is two-fold. First, world demand for steel had dropped 40 per cent. during those disastrous years. It was purely a coincidence in time, but it was the period when the second Socialist Government were in power. With world demand running 40 per cent. lower, it was natural that the more efficient plants should be used.
The second part of the answer is that efficiency is only a relative term. There being competitive conditions in the world, what happened was that the United States, under its intensely competitive and enterprising system, went right ahead with the replacement of plant and left us behind. The pre-war history of our steel industry was the result partly of external conditions and partly of the relatively greater efficiency of the American industry; that was the reason for the closing down of obsolete and inefficient plant. That is something we have all to contemplate. Whatever system is set up to govern the industry, we shall gradually get a closing down of obsolete plant and its replacement by more efficient plant.
What is the real purpose of the Clause? It is not to give the Board or

the Minister a chance to take over industries and enterprises and run them in exactly the same way as the Corporation is doing at the moment, or, indeed, with very much greater control and very much greater interference. The idea behind the Clause is that the basic industries are of such importance to the general economy of the country, in that a fall in investment in them has repercussions which are far wider than a fall in investment in consumer industries, that it may be necessary for positive steps to he taken by means of a central board to ensure that an expansion takes place where the normal economic trend is to slow down expansion.
Our conception of the Bill is that its purpose is not to let nationalisation and the bureaucratisation of the industry in by the back door. Because we do not for a moment believe that we get efficiency merely by setting up a public Board or that the gentleman in Whitehall necessarily knows best, and because we believe that we get efficiency by paying someone to be efficient, I hope my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Mr. Jack Jones: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, might I put this to him? I have followed his arguments, and I must admit that he deploys them with care and sincerity and with a certain amount of knowledge now coming into his possession as the representative of part of the great steel centre of Middlesbrough. If it is true that private ownership automatically brings efficiency and that public ownership as we now have it in the form of the Iron and Steel Corporation brings inefficiency, will he tell us where inefficiency has been proved in the case of companies which have now come under public control and ownership?

Mr. Simon: I did not say that private enterprise necessarily promotes efficiency; I said that private enterprise is more likely to promote efficiency than is a public board. I do not believe that one can argue one way or the other from the present state of the iron and steel industry because nationalisation has not really impinged on the running of the industry. But one can look at other nationalised industries with considerable misgiving in judging whether the running of a large basic industry by a public board is to the national advantage.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Robert Boothby: My hon. and learned Friend has already sat down.

Mr. Winterbottom: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman has sat down, but I want to get him up again. I want him to realise that we have not been arguing about what constitutes efficiency. We have been talking about the inefficiency and bad management which occurs in every industry. In so far as efficiency in the steel industry is so vital to our economy, will he tell me how it is proposed to control inefficiency or bad management in the interests of the national economy if it occurs in a certain firm, short of remote control by some shareholders who may not even know the name of the company in which they have shares?

Mr. Simon: I do not think I am justified in taking much more of the time of the Committee. I endeavoured to answer that point when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). Our conception of the way to cure inefficiency is not to clap on a public board which has no chance of judging, but to rely on normal economic forces and normal incentives to make a profit on the part of those concerned in the enterprise, both workers and shareholders, to stir up the management which, in its own interests, will then be prompted to seek greater efficiency.

Mr. Snow: We join issue with the last words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), for we do not trust the normal processes of private enterprise to maintain and stimulate the demand for steel. The Committee has been characterised by a certain amount of common sense and give-and-take. It is a pity to try to reduce to complete white and complete black the desirability of a board on the one side or old-fashioned laissez-faire on the other. The argument is really whether a board can be fitted in to a system so that we get the best of both worlds.
I was working in the Colonies in the fateful years 1931–32, and as a result of my experience I regard the pre-war

history of the steel industry as a monument to the inefficiency of the private enterprise steel industry. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that the industry as it was then organised could in any way stimulate the global demand for steel? I do not see that it could. We must try to puzzle out an organisation which will stimulate markets or find other markets when traditional markets begin to die.

Mr. Summers: The hon. Gentleman criticised conditions in the steel trade in the 'thirties. Will he agree that for years the industry had been crying out for protection by means of a tariff without which it was impossible to rectify the defects which the hon. Member no doubt has in mind?

Mr. Snow: To argue that a tariff is needed to protect one's industries is a curious argument to come even from the hon. Gentleman. We were certainly up against Far Eastern steel production which was developing in those years. Then we had production on the continent which we ought to have been able to meet if all the claims about efficiency were legitimate.
The real point I want to make is that we on this side of the Committee do not trust private enterprise to find the new markets and stimulate demand in the way it should be done. We do not wish to be more controversial than is necessary, but we think that we should use the Government Agency to obtain production and to stimulate demand.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: At this time of the afternoon we seem to get into a little political flurry and hear certain political theories. I do not propose to take up any time in answering some of the things we have heard which could be easily answered. I want to bring the Committee back to the Amendments. I have studied them carefully and I would refer the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) to Clause 4 of the Bill, where it states that it will be the responsibility of the Board to secure
the provision and use by iron and steel producers of such production facilities in Great Britain as may be required for the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
The operative word is "use."


The purpose of these Amendments seems to reiterate the obvious. It is the principal duty and responsibility of the Board to see that the plants in the country are used to the best advantage. Let us very quickly analyse what is being suggested. As I understand it—and I shall be quite happy, if I misunderstand the general sense of these Amendments, to give way to be corrected—there is a series of situations that might arise. Let us, first of all, take the situation of a plant which, under all the evidence presented to the Board, is completely inefficient, obsolete and out-of-date. Is it suggested that in that case the Board should take it over?

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: In this case it is provided for if it is falling into disuse.

Mr. Robson Brown: It might be absolutely in the national interest that such a plant should fall into disuse. There is no other answer to that.
Then we might get the situation where the management is open to criticism. This is an imperfect world, and I would not advance the argument that there could not be such a situation in the steel industry or any other industry. It is sought in this Amendment to exercise discipline—I do not know of what kind or sort—over inefficient management. I can assure the Committee that the owners of these particular companies will have a great deal to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "OH."] Yes, that is the legitimate and Conservative approach to all these matters. The owners of these companies will have a great deal to say and there is a double support in the fact that the Board's attention can be drawn to them by the owners.
In practice, in the industry this matter is dealt with section by section and product by product, and everyone in the industry knows very well the standard of efficiency of each and every company in the particular sections of the industry. Any bad management would be very quickly removed for obvious reasons which I do not want to burden the Committee with at this juncture.

Mr. Mitchison: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but I do not think he has quite understood the purpose of the Amendments. If he will look at them, he will see that the Board is first to be consulted in order to secure

that existing production facilities are properly used, and then the Board is to report that the proper use of certain existing production facilities is required and that it cannot be obtained in any other way. It is only in those circumstances that the Minister may take the steps provided by the Clause. It is a question of using what is there, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are abundant safeguards in the consultations, in the Board's report and in the fact that the Minister's powers are discretionary and subject to Treasury approval.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his interjection, endorses everything I have said and more powerfully than anything that I have been able to say so far. All the provisions are really necessary and are those which anyone would reasonably want. The only way in which there is a difference here is that in the Amendment the emphasis is on the word "compulsory." There is to be compulsion upon the Board and upon the individual company, and we on this side of the Committee repudiate that and want no part in it.
May I for one moment deal with the second matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Brightside—scrap. I can say sincerely that I know of no company in the iron and steel trade which are substantial users of scrap which could be indicted in any way for giving false information, or withholding scrap, or in any way contravening any regulation or the spirit of any regulation that existed in the industry dealing with supplies of scrap. Any firm which thought it was exceptionally smart in accumulating scrap beyond the standard of the level held by the rest of the industry would find that the appropriate committee is well seized of that and would regulate subsequent supplies.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is it not true that the subsequent supplies were regulated accordingly, and that the regulating of the supplies proves my claim that in many cases the accumulation of scrap was irregular?

Mr. Robson Brown: Oh, no. The hon. Member is reading into my words things I have never said or implied. The consumption of scrap in various plants varies in different ways. I could give dozens of technical explanations for that, each of them satisfactory and beyond criticism.


The main concern of the Committee this afternoon is the question of inefficient plants. [An HON. MEMBER: "The use."] Use is a qualification not made by the hon. Member for Brightside. He dealt largely with inefficient management of plant. I do not want to take up more than a moment or two on this subject, but the best judges of the inefficient management of a plant are the profit and loss accounts of the particular company. How else can it be measured? There is no other measurement that I know of that can properly and reasonably apply. We may get a situation of degree, but there is degree in every company in the industry.
In conclusion, may I just say this on this matter of competition, which has reared its head many times and on which we on this side of the Committee lay such great emphasis. Let us bear in mind that there is no monopoly of steel in the country. We cannot command consumers to use steel and steel only. A competitive element exists all the time with products of steel. In the last few years the competition of aluminium products for structural purposes and the like has increased in a remarkable way. In the canning industry more and more substitutes are appearing for steel, and that is one of the most powerful economic influences upon efficiency or inefficiency in any particular part of an industry. That is the first thing I want to say about competition.
The second aspect of competition which I want to mention is that between company and company within the industry. Even if the price is fixed on a certain basis, there is the whole competitive element of management against management, which is a powerful lever. There is pride in one's craft, and the ability of the management of one particular company as against another, which is one of the finest motive forces in any industry. We must keep it alive in this country. The varying degrees of competition that exist between one company and another is the best guarantee of efficiency.
All these factors must be taken into consideration. If the suggestions contained in these Amendments were carried, the position would be that the Board from time to time would be expected and required to take under their wing one after another of these inefficient plants and inefficient works. In the end they

would finish with a whole conglomeration of works that perhaps might be put out of operation and more efficient and more modern plant put in their place. We do not want to perpetuate inefficient plant, but to take a balanced view and get an overall picture; and, so far as possible, modernise and bring up to the highest degree of efficiency every section of the industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): We have had a long and interesting debate on a matter of obvious importance. There is no dispute that we wish to see maximum efficiency in the industry. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) did not go into a detailed explanation of how all these Amendments fit into Clause 4, and I understand why. However, I think it would be a good thing if I analysed that because it would remove misunderstandings which appear to exist in the minds of some hon. Members.
The purpose of these Amendments is to secure that within the framework of Clause 4 the Minister may use existing production facilities, or make arrangements for other persons to use them, if the Board think those facilities are not being used in an efficient way. That efficient way is defined either—in the case of the Board—as the promotion of an efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, or—in the case of the Minister—if he thinks better use of existing production facilities is required in the national interest.
Subsection (2) covers only the permission given to the Minister to provide and use particular facilities. It is in subsection (3) that the Minister is given the power to acquire facilities. To round off that point I think it should be made clear we are not taking into account a later Amendment, not to be considered now, relating to compulsory acquisition.
We are concerned here only with inefficient use, and not with inefficient plant as such. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made a point about that which I do not propose to answer. Nor are we concerned with the question of demand which was referred to by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).


We discussed in Committee the inefficient use of production facilities. We cannot advise the Committee to accept these Amendments for reasons similar to those which I advanced in resisting Amendments to subsection (3) proposed by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) in Committee. I thought I had satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite and that they would not press the matter further. But as they have done so, I will endeavour to explain our reasons once again.
5.45 p.m.
The test of efficiency and inefficiency used, or assumed, in these Amendments is the opinion of the Board or the Minister as the case may be. We may all have our opinions about the efficiency or inefficiency of this or that undertaking, or person, or Member of Parliament, or even Minister.

Mr. Jack Jones: Or even a junior Minister.

Mr. Low: Or even of anything. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), who is an expert in these matters of efficiency in industry, would agree, as I think would some hon. Members opposite, when I say that it is no easy task to decide, merely by investigating what is happening in a company or undertaking, whether that organisation is efficient or inefficient. It can be done only by a thorough investigation which would involve a degree of interference in the affairs of individual companies which we do not wish to see. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill which aims at free enterprise for this industry, subject to the supervision of the Board——

Mr. Jones: Let them do as they like.

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman says, "Let them do as they like." That is not the spirit in which I am dealing with this matter and I should be grateful if he would listen to the rest of my argument.
Surely the best test is the far more simple test, the normal test of free enterprise and competition in industry—which hon. Members opposite allowed to operate over 80 per cent. of the industry in this country—of whether a company is running at a loss or at a profit.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am puzzled at the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Surely one of the chief duties of the Board, as proposed in this Bill, is to promote efficiency. If the Board is not competent to do that, and has no standards by which to judge, how will the thing work at all?

Mr. Low: I asked the hon. Membet for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) to be good enough to wait to hear what I was about to say. If the hon. Member would also wait, I think I can satisfy him that the Board has a part to play. But we do not think that the part which the Board will play is that of examining each company and deciding on their own whether the company is efficient or not.
The best test is whether a company is running at a profit or a loss. It may be said that if there is no competition in prices, if prices are fixed for one reason or another, that test may not be satisfactory. For that reason the Board have the price determining power under Clause 7. They can fix maximum prices and one would suppose they would fix them on the basis of efficient production. In that case surely the best evidence of inefficiency would be whether a company, operating with those prices, made a loss or a profit. I cannot see any difficulty in accepting that argument. I would go further. If the Board thought that greater efficiency might be obtained by reducing prices they have the power to do so.
What happens inside a company when a loss is being incurred? Several of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), have covered this point. The immediate reaction is that the top man takes an interest, then the board of the company and then the shareholders take an interest.
The hon. Member for Brightside made a false assumption in one of the questions he posed. He asked what was the use of building new plant if existing plant is not properly used. We want the existing plant to be properly used. In the circumstances envisaged in this Bill it will be properly used. The false assumption is that those who own plant will want to go on incurring a loss. That is an assumption


we cannot accept. It is a human characteristic that those who invest their money in undertakings like to see them faring well. They object when the undertakings do not fare well. That is as good a guarantee as any that steps will be taken to see that companies which appear to be running at a loss are urged to improve their efficiency.
It is always open to the Board, when they hear that companies are being run inefficiently, to lend their advice and influence to improve efficiency. If efficiency cannot be improved, the company will stop using the works. The company can sell the works as a going concern, but they may be unable to find a buyer. Obviously, if they can sell the works they will do so because they will get more money in that case. If they cannot find a buyer, it is open to the Minister, under subsection (3), to acquire the works, or to lease them by voluntary arrangement and use them himself or make arrangements for others to do so. Further, if the Minister hears that the works are likely to close down and he makes up his mind to keep them open, he can avoid any stoppage of work by using them at once. It will not be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has run away.
In fact, not only do these Amendments provide a test of efficiency and inefficiency which is not the best test, but they add nothing to the Bill which would help the Board to secure efficiency.
There is a small drafting point in connection with the Amendment, in page 6, line 4, after "use," to insert:
or that any existing production facilities in Great Britain ought in the national interest to be more efficiently used or used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present.
The words:
used otherwise or for some other purpose than at present
could mean that the Minister could use works for some purpose other than the making of iron and steel products as defined in the Bill. I cannot believe that that was the object of the Opposition. Even if we were to recommend the acceptance of that Amendment, those words would not be satisfactory.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Committee will reject this

Amendment without a Division, just as they rejected a similar Amendment during the Committee stage.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help us by elucidating one matter. I draw my definitions from entirely within his own speech, without saying whether they are good or bad. He erected the whole of his argument on the assumption that the profit and loss account was the criterion of the efficiency of an industry. I do not say whether that is right or wrong. I base this point purely on the definition given by the Minister. As the plants in the iron and steel industry have shown a higher profit since nationalisation, cannot it be assumed, on the Minister's own argument, that they are much more efficient than they were under private enterprise? If the hon. Gentleman's logic is correct, why does not he take his wretched Bill away and leave the industry as it is?

Mr. Low: It would take me a long time to answer those questions fully. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are special factors affecting the profits of the Iron and Steel Corporation. Secondly, developments planned long ago by private enterprise have come to fruition.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Parliamentary Secretary is always very clear in the answers he gives to our Amendments, but sometimes he is a little simple. I do not say that in any derogatory sense. Perhaps it would be better to say that he is a little naive in his conception of the industry or indeed of the working of capitalism and industry generally. He showed some of that naiveté by the way in which he dealt with this Amendment.
He was very fair in stating simply the limited purpose of this Amendment. It seeks to ensure that where, on the advice of the Board, the Minister finds that certain production facilities are not being used in the best way for the promotion of efficient production, he may use them himself. The position is that if the Minister thinks that the production facilities of the country are insufficient for national requirements, he is given power to build new facilities after receiving advice from the Board and consulting everybody who ought to be consulted. My view is that he will never do that. In fact, the Minister has told us that it is most unlikely


But he is given power to build new production facilities if he thinks that those in existence are inadequate.
Surely before he would consider spending millions of pounds of public money and devoting large sections of our resources to this purpose, the Minister would want to insist that existing production facilities were being used 100 per cent. in the best interests of the nation. He would not contemplate spending millions of pounds on new facilities if he had reason to believe that there were existing facilities which were not properly or fully used. We say that if the Minister finds that existing facilities are not being properly or fully used, then rather than build new ones he should be allowed to use the existing ones.
Against that, we have had arguments by the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They ask how can the Board interfere in a matter of efficiency, and how can the Minister make use of facilities of this sort. That argument has been put forward by the hon. Member for Heeley and others. It is that, if we want efficiency, all we have to do is to leave the industry in the hands of private enterprise, and somebody or other—management, directors or shareholders—will sooner or later see that the industry is properly run, and that it is quite ridiculous for anyone else to be brought in.
6.0 p.m.
If that were true, it would never happen that companies are reconstructed, lose large sums of money, are in danger of becoming bankrupt, and are then bought up by new people. We cannot afford to waste our resources in the iron and steel industry. The building of production facilities is exceptionally expensive, and we have to be sure that all these facilities are being used in the best interests of the iron and steel industry and are producing to their full capacity.
May I remind hon. Members opposite how important was Government interference of this sort during the war? One could give a good many examples. I was working in the Ministry of Aircraft Production at the time, and I know how constantly the Government found that works were inefficient and were not showing the output commensurate with their potential.
An outstanding example was Short's, the aircraft firm. There, it was found that, under the existing management and ownership, the firm was not producing the goods in the quantity and in the way which the Government required, and it became necessary, after several attempts had been made to make the organisation more efficient to meet the needs of the nation, for the Government to step in, buy the company up and take steps to effect a reorganisation. That happened in war-time, and the same situation may well happen in peace-time, not only to an aircraft firm, but to an important firm in the iron and steel industry if that firm is not doing its job, properly.
The firm may be making a profit at the time. I am unaware, and I cannot remember, whether Short's were making a profit at the time; they probably were, but that has nothing to do with it. A firm can become grossly inefficient and be making profits; they do not necessarily go bankrupt because they are inefficient. It may take five or 10 years before they reach that stage, but we cannot afford to wait 10 years.
Again, the firm may have huge reserves behind them, enabling them to keep going for a long time, or they may be using only 50 per cent. of their capacity, and yet making a profit on it. Therefore, the argument put forward by the Government, saying that it is all right, because, if a firm are not using their production facilities properly, they will go bankrupt, and that, therefore, at that stage, the Government can step in——

Mr. Low: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point with which he has not dealt? The Board have price-fixing powers. Surely, with the aid of these price determination powers under Clause 7, they can at least cover the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strauss: Not a bit. It is quite possible for a company to be producing and making a profit, and using only 75 or even 50 per cent. of their capacity; or they may be running their plant in such a way that they are certainly producing well below capacity and still making a profit at the maximum prices fixed by the Government or the Board. It may be a company with new and efficient plant and good machinery, and they will not necessarily be running at a


loss, even if they sell either below or at the maximum prices fixed by the Government or the Board. All the arguments which suggest that there is some automatic control over the efficiency of the industry, either by maximum prices or by firms going bankrupt, are just nonsense.
Everybody here appreciates that the profits or losses of a firm do not necessarily have any relation to the efficiency of the firm. There are many firms, including new firms working for five years or more at a loss, which may be exceedingly efficient, and there may be other firms making substantial profits while exceedingly inefficient. Therefore, to say that we have to wait for the automatic working of the profit and loss accounts to show that a firm is going bankrupt and then buy it up is sheer nonsense.
We say that, exactly for the same reason that the Government found it necessary during the war to take over Short's, which may have been working at a profit, so it is necessary to give the Minister power so that, when he has obtained all the information he requires, when this independent Board of high-powered and able people have advised that any particular works are not playing their proper part in the production of iron and steel products, or can do better, the Minister ought to be able to say that, rather than build new works costing millions of pounds, he would take over the existing works and see that they are run more efficiently, just as the Government saw that Short's was run more efficiently when they took that firm over.
It is ridiculous to put forward the argument that the Government cannot run these works efficiently, because that was their argument and the argument of the hon. Member for Heeley. If that is so, then let us not have this Clause in the Bill at all, because it gives the Minister the power to build works and run them in association with other people.

Mr. Robson Brown: A very good suggestion.

Mr. Strauss: That is the purpose of this Clause, and the Minister has insisted that it should be he who should have the

power to run them, not necessarily himself, but through other people. We wish to give him exactly the same authority and power to run existing works efficiently, in association with other people.
For all these reasons, we say that the arguments put up against this proposition do not stand examination. The Board has a responsibility for maintaining efficiency, and it is no use hon. Members opposite saying they ought not to have, because the Board has this responsibility for the efficiency of the industry clearly stated in Clause 3. In view of the importance of this industry to the country, in order to make sure that it is contributing all that it can contribute to the prosperity of the British economy, it is somebody's duty to see to it not only that its total capacity is sufficient to meet all needs but that the existing facilities are being properly used.
Therefore, if, after the most careful scrutiny and examination suggested in this Clause, independent people, sitting in a position of responsibility and chosen by the Minister, after consultation with goodness knows how many people, recommend that a certain works is being inefficiently run we say that he should have power to take over such works and see that it is run in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: If the right hon. Gentleman's case is that the profit and loss account of an industrial undertaking is not to be a criterion of efficiency, would he explain why, to cover last year's heavy losses and in anticipation of this year's further losses, the National Coal Board have regarded their profit and loss account as the most important criterion of all and why, to cover all those losses, they have bounced up the price of coal by 5s. 6d.?

Mr. Strauss: Had the hon. Member been listening, he would have realised that I said nothing of the sort. I said that the profits and losses of a company are not necessarily a criterion of either efficiency or mismanagement.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 266.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[6.11 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Adams, Richard
Hamilton, W. W.
Poole, C. C.


Albu, A. H.
Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hargreaves, A
Porter, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Pryde, D. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, John


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Reeves, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.J.
Holman, P
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bartley, P
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Bence, C. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Richards, R.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benson, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Carnarvon)


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, F
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Boardman, H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brockway, A. F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Carmichael, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chapman, W. D.
Kinley, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Coldrick, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Collick, P. H.
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGovern, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacMillan, M. K. (Westeren Isles)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George(Dundee, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Delargy, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thornton, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Donnelly, D. L.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, F.
Tourner-Samuels, M.


Edelman, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morley, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Edward (Lowesteft)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
West, D. G.


Fienburgh, W
Mort, D. L.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mulley, F. W.
Wigg, George


Follick, M.
Murray, J. D.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Foot, M. M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
O'Neill, Michael (Mid Ulster)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gibson, C. W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Gooch, E. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Palmar, A. M. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pannell, Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
Yates, V F


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, J.



Hate, Leslie
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pearl, T. F.
Mr. Wallace and




Mr. James Johnson.







NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Allan, R. A (Paddington, S.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig, F


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Mellor, Sir John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St, Albans)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mott-Radclyffe C. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Banks, Col. C.
Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Barber, Anthony
Hay, John
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Heald, Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Edward
Odey, G. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Birch, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Black, C. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig C. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Horobin, I. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Profumo, J. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bullard, D. G.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Corn. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Robson Brown, W.


Campbell, Sir David
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Russell, R. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cole, Norman
Kaberry, D.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colegate, W. A.
Kerr, H. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr, Albert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott, R. Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Crookshank, Capt. RI. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. MoN.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, A. C. M


Digby, S. Wingfield
Low, A. R. W.
Speir, R. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Donner, P. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
McCallum, Major D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Storey, S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fell, A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Finlay, Graeme
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, H. G.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Fitzroy
Summers, G. S.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hareford)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Gammans, L. D.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marples, A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Tilney, John


Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gower, H. R.
Maudling, R.
Turner, H. F. L.







Turton, R. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vane, W. M. F
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Vosper, D. F.
Wellwood, W.
York, C.


Wade, D. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)



Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exator)
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wills, G.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 45, at end, insert:
Iron ore produced outside Great Britain by means of production facilities provided under this subsection shall not be required to be used wholly in the iron and steel industry.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 22, at end, insert:
and includes property or rights required for the quarrying or mining of iron ore."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(CONSULTATION WITH THE BOARD ON MATTERS CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY.)

(1) The Minister shall keep the Board informed—

(a) of the proceedings of the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community so far as such proceedings are within his knowledge and appear to him to be relevant to the duties of the Board under subsection (1) of section three of this Act, and
(b) of such other matters concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the said Community as in the opinion of the Minister are relevant to the said duties of the Board.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Board to give advice and information to the Minister on any matters relating to their said duties being matters which have been referred by the Minister to the Board concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the said Community or being matters which, in the opinion of the Board, ought to be taken into account in connection with the said relationship.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as requiring the Minister to disclose to the Board any matter which in his opinion it is not in the national interest to disclose to them.

(4) In this section the expression "the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community" means the Institutions mentioned in Article seven of the Treaty constituting the said Community signed in Paris in the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.—[Mr. Sandys.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I suggest that we should at the same time consider the Amendment standing in my name to Clause 14, page 14, line 41, at end, insert:
(4) The Board may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer or any such person as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, to furnish to the Board such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purpose of giving advice or information to the Minister on any matters referred by him to the Board under subsection (2) of the section of this Act (Consultation with the Board on matters concerning the European Coal and Steel Community).
At the end of the Committee stage hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment to provide for consultation between the Government and the Board on our relations with the Schuman Coal and Steel Community. As I think hon. Members will remember, the outcome of a most interesting debate on that subject was an expression, which I think was universal in all parts of the House, in favour of the inclusion in the Bill of statutory reference to consultation between the Board and the Government on the formulation of policy in relation to the Schuman Community.
In reply to that debate I associated myself with these opinions, and indicated that I attached as much importance as did any hon. Member to there being effective consultation between the Board and the Government on this matter. I said that we had great sympathy with the proposal that some reference to it should be incorporated in the Iron and Steel Bill. I explained to the Committee, however, that, most reluctantly, I felt unable to accept the Amendment put forward by the Opposition in the form in which it was drafted mainly because it raised quite serious constitutional difficulties, in that it placed upon the Government, and particularly upon the Foreign Secretary, a statutory obligation to consult an outside body before issuing instructions to Her Majesty's representatives overseas.
I explained that we felt most reluctant to establish such a precedent. Certainly, it would have been a novel principle and


one which would have required much thought before we decided to accept it. On the other hand, I undertook to see whether we could avoid those constitutional difficulties and present to the House an alternative Clause which would give effect to the substance of the Opposition's Amendment. The new Clause, and the Amendment to Clause 14, page 14, line 41, implement that undertaking.
For the convenience of the House I should like to compare, paragraph by paragraph, the new Clause and the Amendment to Clause 14 with the Amendment submitted by the Opposition earlier. The first paragraph of the Opposition Amendment provided that the Minister should inform the Board of the proceedings of the Institutions of the Schuman Community. The first paragraph of the new Clause also includes that same provision; that is to say it states:
The Minister shall keep the Board informed—
(a) of the proceedings of the Institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community…
We go a little further in paragraph (b) and provide that the Minister shall keep the Board informed
of such other matters concerning the relationship between the United Kingdom and the said Community…
that is, the Schuman High Authority.
The second paragraph of the Opposition's earlier Amendment dealt with the consultation between the Government and the Board. It provided that the Minister should consult the Board on the instructions to be issued to Her Majesty's representatives at the Schuman High Authority. Our new Clause covers the same point in its second paragraph.
There are, however, two differences. First, there is the one to which I have already referred, in that, for the constitutional reasons which I have given, it does not place an absolute obligation upon the Government to consult the Board before issuing instructions to Her Majesty's representatives. On the other hand, as I think hon. Members will agree, it effectively provides for consultation.
The second difference is that it specifically refers to the desirability of a two-way exchange of views between the Board and the Government. I referred to this point in my reply in Committee. It

does not only provide for the Government's consulting the Board, but also places on the Board a duty to make representations to the Government in the light of the information provided by the Government with regard to the proceedings of the Schuman Community.
The third paragraph of the Opposition's original Amendment gave the Board power to obtain information from iron and steel producers, in order that the Board might be advised on points on which the Government had consulted them. The addition to Clause 14—the Amendment to page 14, line 41—provides the same power in an equally satisfactory and comprehensive way. I hope that this new Clause, together with the Amendment which I shall later move to Clause 14, will be accepted by the House as fully implementing my undertaking.
Above all, I hope it will be interpreted both here and abroad as providing further evidence of the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to our relations with the Schuman Coal and Steel Community, and as proof of our intention that the Board and the Government shall co-operate closely and effectively in formulating international policies affecting the steel industry.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: We should be most ungracious if we did not accept thankfully the practically complete compliance with our suggestions during the Committee stage which is represented by this new Clause and the other Amendment to which the Minister has referred. The differences are very small. We, too, contemplated a two-way traffic between the Minister and the Board. The matter of protocol is no doubt of considerable theoretical importance, but our intentions were quite obvious and they are met by the Clause in its present form, and if I add some small points afterwards I hope they will not be taken to detract from the thanks I have expressed to the Minister.
I should perhaps couple with him one figure which appeared in our short debates in Committee—I have no doubt that the Minister will remember the occasion—that of a lady with whom he said he was going to have a word before she left England again. Presumably, she was going to give him a little more advice on


the question of how he could meet the Committee's desire on this point. To her, too, we are suitably grateful, and we leave it to the Minister to decide how far he can take the gratitude to himself and how far he can distribute his Ministerial largesse elsewhere.
I think it was in one of Offenbach's plays that the gendarmes always used to appear to the tune of toujours trop tard—always too late. I do not say that the Government have been too late in this case, and we all share their good intentions now; but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) raised this point comparatively early during the Committee stage and I wish we had not had to do the reminding and the drafting.
I am quite sure the Minister means it all now and that our friends in Europe will accept this, as they should do, as evidence of our real wish to take our proper place in the Schuman Plan. That is a most serious matter. I hope the Government will remember that on this occasion it was the Opposition who raised this point in the first place; it was the Opposition who put down an Amendment substantially on the lines of that which the Government are now putting forward themselves. I hope they will not say, as they have been a little apt to say in the past, that the Opposition were always liable to drag their feet in matters of collaboration with Europe. We are vitally concerned with the success of the Schuman Plan and with the part that we can play in it.
I remember very well the occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) turned up at Strasbourg as the first working miner ever to be seen there and told the Assembly what the Schuman Plan really meant to this country. I felt that at that time the Minister did not appreciate that performance quite as well as he does now. In my opinion, it was a very useful act and it was done in an admirable way and with admirable spirit. Therefore, let us go hand in hand, at any rate in the matter of seeing that we do play our part in the very important developments that are going on in Europe at present.
In that connection I want to ask the Minister one question, to which he probably knows the answer already. I do

not think 1 shall have the least difficulty about it. This new Clause gives the Board an additional and very important function. May I take it that when the Board make their report they will consider it their duty—and I should like to know that in the Minister's view it is part of their duty—to include a statement of what action has been taken under this new Clause or this Section of the Act, as it will then be.
I ask that question not merely because of the importance of having a report but because I assume that the report will or can be debated in Parliament some time. I think I am speaking for many hon. Members on both sides of the House—but perhaps particularly those on my side —when I say that the opportunities for discussion of the Schumann Plan, and the political and economic changes that are going on in Europe and which are so closely tied up with it, have been too few having regard to the importance of the matter and also having regard to the promises made by the Prime Minister at Strasbourg that there would be opportunities of discussion here.
I hope I shall not be out of order in saying that I hope that the Board's report, and the inclusion in it of a statement of what has been done under this new Clause, will provide a regular opportunity for discussion of this aspect of the Schuman Plan. That Plan also covers coal. I cannot talk about that, but it is obviously at least as important to us as iron and steel.
I should like again to thank the Minister and the anonymous and distinguished gentlemen who have been associated with him for the concession they have made to the Opposition and, far more important, the concession they have made to what is happening in Europe and the possibilities of international collaboration in this field, by moving a Clause that so fully meets our requirements.

Mr. Boothby: I detected a note of perhaps understandable embarrassment in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is understandable when he remembers, as I remember so vividly and as the Minister must remember, the implacable opposition of the party opposite to the Schuman Plan in every shape and form and the relentless objection to it which they raised at Strasbourg.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member has attributed to me feelings which I certainly did not have. As to the implacable opposition, it never existed except in the hon. Gentleman's fertile imagination. We have said consistently, from the moment that the Schuman Plan came into existence, that we wished it well, that we were prepared to collaborate with it but that, with the party opposite, we felt we could not federate with those countries in Europe which desired to federate.

Mr. Boothby: That is all right, but I was sitting in Strasbourg at the time and, together with the hon. and learned Gentleman, was a victim of the buckets of cold water which were slung out from London during all those negotiations.
I do not want to import any heat into the debate, but as I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman I was absolutely flabbergasted, not by his conversion—because I thought that would come—but by the extent of his conversion. He is now wholeheartedly for an international, European co-operation in the economic field. He spoke very warmly of the High Authority and the Coal and Steel Community. That is splendid, and I only hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite keep it up.
I said I did not want to bring any heat into the debate, nor do I want to introduce any depression, but I think I must utter a word of warning. Some of the sponsors of the Coal and Steel Community in Europe have very far-reaching plans and ideas in their heads which I think we in this House must face. They want to create an economic unit and, ultimately, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, a political, federal unit which will replace the Council of Europe and O.E.E.C. as an effective international European organisation and which could lead to the virtual exclusion of this country and Scandinavia from the European economy.
It is idle to deny that there are those in Europe—and some of them are powerful figures—who have this plan and this design and who would like to see it realised. My apprehension is based upon the fact that such a unit, if and when it were created and if it were completely divorced from this country, would from the outset be dominated by Germany. From the very nature of affairs it must be dominated by Germany. It would

contain an internal market comprising somewhere between 100 million and 150 million people and it would also contain an industrial potential far in excess of this country both in coal and in steel.
Further, and this is the point I want to emphasise to the House and to the Minister, it would be dependent for raw materials upon foreign supplies and it would be dependent for success and prosperity upon foreign markets. If we were right out of this body—and I welcome the Clause because I think it is designed to see that we are not right out of it—the situation could lead to a renewal of that intensive, uncontrolled international competition which did such infinite damage to the heavy industries, not only of this country, but of Europe in the years between the wars.
6.45 p.m.
That is what I am apprehensive about, and as I see it—and I think the Minister will not dissent from this view—the only way out is a comprehensive treaty between this country and the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community designed to achieve an effective collaboration at every level between this country and the Coal and Steel Community of the Schuman Plan. I think this Clause will assist, first of all, in achieving that, and, secondly, in carrying it out by ensuring that that collaboration will be continuous and effective.
In short—and this is the whole point of what I have risen to say—I am convinced that there is a division in Luxembourg and Europe between those who want to make this a purely Continental, tight, exclusive unit, with Britain right outside it—which I think would be extremely dangerous and might be very inimical to the economic interests of this country—and, on the other hand, those who would genuinely like to see effective collaboration between this country and the High Authority. I do not think I need beg my right hon. Friend to do this, but he must do all that lies in his power to ensure that it is the latter view which prevails and not the former.
My impression is that the somewhat gay and uncritical approval which we appear to have given to the movement towards a closer and exclusive integration on the part of the Schuman countries may be a little short-sighted. I think there is here a possible threat to British


interests which could be quite rapid and serious. Already, we see that the six Powers have been granted a waiver of the most-favoured-nation clause by G.A.T.T., which gives them the right to discriminate in favour of each other and against us. I think part of the treaty which I hope will be negotiated between the Steel Board and the High Authority should be directed towards eliminating that discrimination, which could tell very heavily against us.
As I have said, I am not surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are coming to see the dangers implicit in a tight, exclusive, six-Power unit or federation, if we like to call it that, which altogether excludes us. Of course, they must remember the days between the wars when the heavy industries of this country were reduced to a tragic plight—and not only those of this country. I think they have too often been inclined to forget that, although not very much appeared about it in the public Press and although not very much was generally known to the public, before the war the steel industry of this country was driven into a cartel—an international economic cartel which also met at Luxembourg and in which we not only played a part but frequently took the lead.
That is why I and, I think, the Minister would have liked to see us go into the Schuman Plan discussions at the very outset. I still believe, and shall never cease to believe, that, had we done so, we might have achieved a better arrangement than we have today—an arrangement completely in accord with our wishes. However, it is too late now to go back on that.
I believe hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I point out that steel works which are obsolete will, in the long run, be closed either by ruthless competition or by agreement. In my opinion, it is better, on the whole, to close them by agreement. I believe that to a great extent this much-vaunted British freedom of action in this field is illusory. As I see it, we have a chance under the Clause to pursue the better of the two alternatives which confront this country. The first alternative, as I have pointed out, is the creation of a powerful but artificial industrial unit under the domination and direction of Germany on the Continent of Europe, from which we shall be

excluded and which will have the right to discriminate against us.
The second alternative is the development, in co-operation and collaboration with the Western European Continental powers, of a comprehensive trading area out of the area now covered by E.P.U., which includes the sterling area. That is what could be done under the Clause. That is the goal for which we must work, because the first alternative, the tight, exclusive, economic unit, would mean the employment of the capital resources of Western Europe, including Federal Germany, in an all-out drive for markets from which we could scarcely expect to emerge completely unscathed. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite want that. Certainly, I do not want a flat-out fight with a powerful industrial community in Europe to collar the markets of the world. I do not believe that it would do us any good in the long run.
The second alternative would mean the employment of those capital resources in the expansion of production and the development of reciprocal trade throughout the area covered by E.P.U.—in other words, throughout Western Europe and the sterling area. Surely that is the alternative for which we must strive. That is the right and the better alternative. Because I believe this Clause to be a first step—and, I must say, only a tentative step—in that direction, I warmly welcome the Minister's action in moving it.

Mr. George Darling: I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) on being able to keep within the bounds of order far more successfully than I when I tried to broach the same points in Committee.

Mr. Boothby: This is the Report stage.

Mr. Darling: Yes, but I certainly had great difficulty. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if a little consistency had been shown by himself and some of his friends at Strasbourg we might have had a more coherent line taken by our unfortunately not united delegations on occasion, and that might have brought us more closely into that association that we want.

Mr. Boothby: I never deviated one inch on this issue—never—in my speeches


at Strasbourg or in this House or anywhere else. I always thought we ought to have gone into the Schuman Plan at the start. I still think so. There has been no deviation so far as I am concerned.

Mr. Darling: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am sorry I did not make my point clear. I was not referring only to the Schuman Community but to the whole of what was going on at Strasbourg. However, I should be out of order if I were to pursue that point.
I do not intend to inflict a speech on the House, but only to ask the Minister one or two questions on how this Clause, when the Bill is passed, will work so far as we in this House are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman says—and I agree with him—that he hopes that the passing of this Clause will be taken as an earnest of our intention to gain that closer association that we all want with the Coal and Steel Community. Something more is required, however, than the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the work of the Schuman Plan and the part that our delegation plays in that Community should be described in the annual report of the Iron and Steel Board.
In any case, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire said, the Iron and Steel Community will probably become wider and wider still. I wonder whether the Minister has in mind presenting to the House, in association with his colleague, the Minister of Fuel and Power, a White Paper to tell us what the present situation is with regard to the Iron and Steel Community, and particularly of the work that our delegation is doing there in the joint committee of the delegation and the High Authority, and whether we shall get not only reports of actions that are taken but some idea of the views of our own delegation.
I know that that is rather difficult, because the members of the delegation are public servants who, I suppose, must speak through the mouths of Ministers. I notice, however, that in a Press report after one of the first meetings of the joint committee the leader of our delegation said that working groups of the joint committee had been set up to discuss

and study all kinds of pertinent questions that were raised by our association with the Community. Unfortunately, the Press report stopped there.
Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will agree that the existence of these working parties and working groups opens quite an avenue of conjecture as to what they are doing, what they hope to achieve and so on, and I think it is right and proper that, rather than wait for the annual report of the Board, we should from time to time have from the Government—not just from the Minister of Supply, who is concerned with only one part of the work—fairly frequent reports of what is going on. If the Minister can give us some idea of what he has in mind on the question of providing the House with information of that sort, I am sure we shall all be grateful.

Mr. P. Roberts: I wish very briefly to say that I am glad to see this step forward towards closer co-operation with the Continental industries. I am equally glad to say that I was most interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), because I believe that the note of warning which he struck was very necessary in our deliberations. I am not going over again the two points which he made, first, that there is a very great danger from the formation of a Continental cartel in coal and steel; and second, that there is a great danger of German predominance in such a cartel.
He did not deal with that matter to any great extent. I would remind the House of this fact, that under the present arrangements orders for engineering work from the area of the Schuman Plan Community are being allocated in proportion to the income and production of the countries concerned; and that automatically means that a great many orders will go to Germany, where the main income and production is. I am quite clear in my own mind that the danger of the predominance of German industry in that Community as now constituted is a potential threat to the trade and industry of this country.
The point is—and again my hon. Friend did not take this very much farther—that the control which we have at the moment is a very illusory control. The Eden Plan has been suggested. It is not


giving us any voting rights as such in the Community, and I am not sure whether such a form of association will be good enough for the protection of our industry in this country. I have always felt that either we have to go into this Community, and, possibly, lead it and control it, and put some weight against the predominance of German production on the other side; or else that we had better not join the Community at all. Those are the points I should like to put to the House.
I find it a little easier to keep in order on this new Clause than the hon. Member did previously, because this is a very much wider proposal. It refers to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Community. Unfortunately, the previous Amendment did not deal with the relationship of the United Kingdom and the Community. This proposal does open the whole question of the relationships between this country and the Community. We may talk in wide words, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) did, about co-operation with the Community, but what does he mean by "co-operation"? Is he satisfied that the Community itself will accept co-operation from us when we put nothing into it from our side at all? There must be some sort of bargain in this.
I go back to the beginning of what my hon. Friend said, that it was a sad thing that this whole arrangement got off on the wrong foot. Hon. Members opposite, even the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), are not guiltless in this matter. In the early days the hon. Gentleman put the whole weight of his arguments against any association with the Schuman Plan.

Mr. Boothby: He was awful.

Mr. Mitchison: This is the second time this has been said. It is really quite untrue. What happened was—and it will be within the recollection of the House—that a condition was imposed on this country of accepting a supra-national authority before we could enter into any discussions on the Schuman Plan at all, and that is the reason we did not attend the discussions.

Mr. Roberts: I have no doubt that if matters had been handled properly that difficulty could have been got over, and

that we should have come to some better arrangement than was made. However, let us not quarrel on this issue now. It does seem that we are moving along the path to closer co-operation. The question I would put to all Members in this House is, what do we mean by "closer co-operation"? Can we get the Community now to accept our co-operation when we merely veto all their arrangements without any participation by us? I would say to all those who look at this thing logically that if we have a Schuman Community, then we should be in it. If we are not in it, better to have no Schuman Community at all.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I want to refute some of the arguments of the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) and Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). During all the time I have put the case on behalf of my party we have never adopted an isolationist attitude, and my speeches are on record. What we did say—and we still stand by it—was that we were not prepared to hand over control of our internal economy in coal and steel to a supra-national authority on the Continent, but that we were prepared to work in close liaison with the authority when it was set up.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East will remember that I said at the time the Schuman Plan was being discussed that we would be prepared to make agreements on marketing, discriminatory practices, wages, prices and capital resources. We were prepared to make those international agreements because we knew the economic implications of integrating the markets of Europe.
I suffered as much as anyone in the mining industry from the inter-war period, and when I spoke at Strasbourg about this Plan I did not speak from an academic point of view. What was the spectacle I then saw? The Tories were playing with the people on the Continent over this question, and were arguing that we ought to go into it. Now that they form the Government and have got the power, why do they not become full members of the Schuman Plan? There is nothing to stop them now going to the High Authority, accepting the federalist position, and saying that we are prepared to hand over our coal and steel industries and become full members. Why do they


not do that? The simple reason is that they have one voice in opposition and another in Government. They are now adopting the attitude the Labour Party pursued when they opposed us on the Continent for two years.
From the first the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East has stood for participating fully in the Schuman Plan. He has made no conditions about it. He believes that to prevent the shambles of the inter-war years in the coal and steel industries we ought to be full members, and he has always said so. I admire him for it. But the rest of the Tory delegation did not say that. They had the Macmillan-Eccles Plan, which the hon. Gentleman will remember. When that went to a committee for discussion there was not a Tory there to fight for the plan they had presented. There was a row on this issue between one of their delegation and M. Paul Reynaud. I suggest that they forget the past history on this and face up to the present position as it will affect this country, and what our relationship must be with this organisation.
I am not prepared, as a representative of a mining community and interested in the miners' union, to hand over control of our coal industry to the nine people in Saarbrucken. They may make decisions which may be detrimental to us, but if we get the five agreements I proposed in 1951 there is no need for Britain either to become a full member or to fear a return of the shambles we faced in the inter-war years. According to the part of the High Authority Report dealing with price fixing, they are going to set up some machinery which will abolish the distortions between Britain's cheaper production and the dearer production of the participating countries in the Schuman Plan. Whether this is the first move to try to push us out of our traditional markets we cannot tell at present, but I impress upon the Minister that this part of the High Authority Report ought to be watched.
I want to see agreement on the five issues I have mentioned, and I do not want our position to be defended in the Council of Europe. They have no power to deal with this. All we can get is a report from the High Authority. We can talk in the Council of Europe till the cows come home, but we cannot alter

one word or comma in the High Authority Report. If a decision affecting our economy is made by the High Authority, the Council of Europe is the last place in which we can get redress. We are not prepared to sacrifice the fundamental principle of controlling our own coal and steel industries, and I suggest that we immediately get on with negotiating treaties on the five economic propositions I have mentioned.
Once we reach that stage we ought to tell M. Monnet, and tell him pretty plainly, that having negotiated a treaty on these five propositions we are entitled to a voice without a vote in the Coal and Steel Community Assembly, so that if any matter affecting us arises we shall have a voice in the Assembly, who have power by two-thirds majority to alter anything in the reports.
I am not trying to deride the Council of Europe, but knowing the terrific competition the British coal industry will face in the next two years from South Africa, Poland, and maybe from Germany, I believe it is essential to have agreement if we are to maintain our traditional markets. If we do not get agreement we shall be back to the interwar years, with Britain competing with the Continent, and it will be just as bad for the Schuman Plan countries as for ourselves if we reach that stage. While mine may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, seeking representation in the Coal and Steel Community Assembly, I do ask the Minister to see whether that line cannot be pursued so that we can work in the closest co-operation with the Schuman Plan High Authority.

Mr. Robson Brown: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), and to have heard him speak in the way he did, because, frankly, that was not my impression of the attitude of his party two years ago; certainly not of their Front Bench.
I feel that in the development of the Schuman Plan there has been a certain element of "wait and see" in this country in the hope that perhaps the Schuman Plan would never be put into effect. I would point out, with respect, that in my very first speech in this House I emphasised with all the force I could that the Schuman Plan should go through and would go through, and that we


should be parties to it and generally cooperate in it from the very beginning. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) has said many things which have been in my mind from the beginning of the Schuman Plan. If we had gone in during those early days we would have been able to supply that leadership and balance between the various steel-making countries of Europe which we supplied before the war, to great effect and benefit to us all.
I do not want to misunderstand the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I should like to know whether he suggests that we should go in lock, stock, and barrel.

Mr. Blyton: What I am suggesting is that we ought to make the five international agreements without sinking our principles, which I suggested in 1951, on prices, discriminatory practices, wages. capital resources and markets. If we make these agreements, I think that we are entitled to a voice, not a vote, in the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community.

Mr. Robson Brown: I thank the hon. Member for that exposition of his ideas. We have to be practical in these matters. I am not so sure that the European members of the Schuman Plan would accept the provisos set out in the way in which they have been by the hon. Member. They seek to have the best of two worlds, and I do not think that we can ever get that.
I feel that the Minister and the Government, in collaboration with the best advice available in the steel and coal industry, should themselves, as soon as possible, work out how far they should go, how far they are prepared to negotiate, and what are the needs and the protective requirements of the British iron and steel industry. That is what we have to do at some stage, if we expect to negotiate an international arrangement.
I want to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), during the Committee stage of the Bill. I rather sensed then from his words, and as I read them later in HANSARD, the feeling that the Schuman Plan Authority would state that we had to come in 100 per cent. on their terms or not at all. We cannot accept

this either for the steel industry or for the coal industry. There is ample room for negotiation because our position is in no way parallel to that of the other signatories.
I sympathise with the doubts and fears of Members of the Opposition, when their party formed the Government, about entering into any commitment which would give a voice to other countries in regard to the level of iron and steel production in our own country. It was a terrifying thought, and I think that it was the one that influenced them more than any other. Before the war, we learned to work in co-operation and collaboration with our colleagues in the steel industries of most of the progressive countries of the world to the mutual benefit of them all, and I believe that we shall have to do that again. It will be in our own interests, it will be in their interests, and I think it will be in the interests generally of peace in Europe.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member agree that what he is saying relates to the federation? No one would object to the federation doing what it chooses, consistent with the national interest, but this particular new Clause relates to the part which the Board are to play, and that may be a different matter.

Mr. Robson Brown: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present when I spoke of this during the Committee stage. I spoke very forcibly, and I and other hon. Members on this side supported the suggestion that a Clause of this character, with these particular provisions, should be in the Bill.
I believe that, even if we get an understanding of a satisfactory and acceptable kind between ourselves in the steel industry of this country on the Schuman Plan, if it is to be effective it must be carried one stage further. I do not think that we shall achieve the aims which we all desire unless we bring in the U.S.A. I cannot see any international arrangement covering the world, such as that which is projected now, being effective or of real and lasting value without the effective co-operation of the U.S.A.

Mr. Snow: I think that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) was a little unfair when he said that the signatories to the Paris Treaty wanted the


best of two worlds. That is an accusation which I should have thought could be more justifiably levied against ourselves.

Mr. Robson Brown: I said that we wanted the best of two worlds.

Mr. Snow: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is perfectly right. This particular form of delegation to Luxembourg is an attempt to secure maximum benefits with the least responsibility.
7.15 p.m.
I was very pleased to see the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) come into the Chamber. He has a habit, if I may say so, of being consistent in this matter of European economics. The political fan dance which is the policy of the Conservative Party over European federation and participation in the Schuman Plan has always been characterised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire being the one stable factor. Whether he is for the Plan or something less I do not know, but I pay this tribute to him, that he has been consistent. I was interested to hear him voice this fear, which I have heard from other sources on the benches opposite, about the competition which will be felt in this country very soon. I should have thought that that was the one justification for our original position of not rushing in to participate in the supra-national authority.
I should like to put two points to the Minister on this new Clause, and I will deal with the least one first. I should have thought that to do the thing well, reference should have been made to Article 14 of the Paris Treaty, where this country is singled out for a special approach by the Authority to discuss overall economic and commercial relations. It is a small point but one which the right hon. Gentleman might like to think over. I will read the first sentence:
Upon the establishment of the High Authority, the member states shall undertake negotiations with the Governments of third countries, and particularly with the British Government, on overall economic and commercial relations concerning coal and steel between the Community and such countries.
I think that this Clause might have been prefaced by reference to that particular Article.
The second point concerns subsection (2) of the new Clause, which refers in the latter part to the responsibility of the Board to consult with the Minister in such matters in connection with the Community as the Minister may have brought to the attention of the Board. I wonder if that is going quite far enough. If one reads into that proposal, I should have thought that what it says inhibited the Board from initiating consultation with the Minister when the Board have received commercial information which it is desirable to take action about—commercial information on the European scene.
I should have thought that the ordinary firm would have been somewhat more sensitive to immediate repercussions of commercial problems than either the delegation at Luxembourg or the Minister or the Board themselves. I am wondering whether that subsection does preclude the Board from receiving commercial information and initiating discussions with the Minister, or whether the Board cannot operate until the Minister has consulted the Board.

Mr. Summers: It was because I largely shared, and still share, the view of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) that in matters of this kind collaboration is more desirable than ruthless competition, that I supported the general idea of bringing forward such a Clause as this.
I want to voice two opinions in this context which may be at variance with some of the things which have been said. I do not share the fear that some have expressed as to the consequences of the formation of the Steel Community on the Continent as it may affect the industry in this country. There are two reasons which, I think, are overlooked by those which have voiced that fear.
Before the war it was in part, at least, the effect of intense competition between Continental countries which affected the export price of steel products and so depressed the price that we in this country were able to get. If now that intense competition between the Continental countries is greatly to be modified, at any rate as far as that is concerned there will be less likelihood of a drastic cutting down of export prices.
The second change that is overlooked is the very great change in the relative


wages payable in the steel industry on the Continent and the steel industry here before the war as compared with now. It was very largely the disparity in wage rates which enabled Continental producers to offer steel in this market at prices which were intolerable. Comparisons now are very different. That handicap, therefore, no longer exists.
One of my hon. Friends has asked what is meant by co-operation. What are we going to offer? If an agreement, which, I well believe, may come in time, is to be satisfactory to both parties, there must be a bargain. What are we to offer? Last time, we offered some imports into the market here at a time when we were raising the tariff and were threatening completely to exclude Continental steel. It was the ability of this country to admit some steel in exchange for an arrangement on export prices which was the key that unlocked the door to a satisfactory settlement, and without which it would never have been done. That opportunity to offer something like that in negotiations does not exist now to anything like the same extent as it did before, particularly as the increasing capacity in this country renders imports less necessary.
I do not think we ought to approach this important question from the point of view of what we have to offer. If there is one way that we should prepare ourselves for the time when it will be in the interests both of the Continental and of the British producers to make an arrangement, it is to get our costs down. That is the surest defence for our economy in steel which we can devise.
However desirable arrangements with the Continent might be—I should be the last to disparage them, having had some part in them in the past, when, I am sure, they were of great value to this country—do not let us rely solely for our prosperity on international agreements. Let us be quite certain that the firmer foundation of a competitive cost of production is available to us, and then, and only then, are we likely to get an arrangement which will be satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Blyton: If the Schuman Plan Authority imposes a discriminatory tax against steel going to the Continent, would not the hon. Member's costs of production argument fall to the ground?

Mr. Summers: I do not consider that the export of British steel to the Continent is ever a prospect that is likely to be very important for this country. What is important is that markets that are open both to the Continental producers and to us in the rest of the world, should not go to the Continent because of cheap prices, as happened before the war, but should be available for us also on competitive terms. I should not expect that a very large proportion of British steel would ever find a market on the Continent.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: As one who wishes to see the maximum possible co-operation between this country and the Schuman Authority on coal and steel, I am very glad to speak for a few minutes at the end of this debate. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) is entitled to our respect for the consistency with which he has all along advocated co-operation between us and the European countries in this matter. But of course, he has to a large extent been a lone wolf in his own party——

Mr. Boothby: No.

Mr. Mallalieu: —and it seems to me that in the remarks which he made earlier he was, perhaps, trying to work his way back into esteem in his own party.

Mr. Boothby: Oh, no.

Mr. Mallalieu: Perhaps I was mistaken, and perhaps, like us, the hon. Member looks upon the party opposite as something which the cat brought home. In any case, the hon. Member has been put right by the very authoritative manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), who pointed out the extent to which we on this side would like to go in the direction of co-operation with the Schuman Authority.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), for once, in what he said about the necessity for us all to work together here, since we appear almost unanimously, to wish to go forward towards a very great degree of co-operation between our country and the Schuman countries. It is far better to concentrate upon the future and not so much upon the past, and it is upon the future that I wish to concentrate my remaining half-minute. It is because I believe that the Clause will give the House


an opportunity to press whatever Government may be in power, if they need pressing, to further co-operation, that I believe it is very much to be supported.
Some months ago it was my great privilege to visit the Schuman country, which, incidentally, is also the Mallalieu country, for it is from that country, from the village of Malleloy, in Lorraine, that my family came. I visited a great many steel works and spoke to managements and to trade union officials. I spoke, in fact, to a very great variety of people. They had a great variety of views as to whether the Schuman Plan would work and whether, in any case, it was desirable. There was, however, one thing which they all seemed to have in common—and this supports very much what has been said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire and by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring.
They all said this: "If you will not come into this Plan, we shall have to be against you." They did not want to be against us. They would still welcome a great degree of co-operation——

Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mallalieu: —between us and them. It is because I believe that the new Clause may lead slightly in that direction and may help us, in the House, to urge Governments to that further co-operation—which we all now, apparently, desire—that I support it.

Mr. Sandys: By leave of the House, I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the debate. I will not attempt to roam over the whole field, but will concentrate on two points which were raised and which relate specifically to the new Clause.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said he hoped that the Board's annual report would include some reference to their duties in relation to the Schuman Community. He will see that the new Amendment which I have tabled, arising from the previous debate on the question of the Board's reports and accounts, provides that the Minister may request the Board to include in their report statements about specific aspects of their duties. I imagine that the Board would wish to do that on a matter of such great public interest,

but if they did not wish to do so there would be no difficulty in the Minister asking the Board to make quite sure that their report included a reference to this important subject.

Mr. Mitchison: That means, does it not, that if in the opinion of the Minister the Board do not cover this function sufficiently, he will undertake to ask them to make good the deficiency?

Mr. Sandys: We are dealing with the relations between the Government and the Board in general. In one year the matter may be of importance, and in another year it may be of less importance. I am simply explaining what the position will be under the Bill. Certainly, it will be my intention, if I am still in this position at the time, to ask the Board to make some reference to it in their report.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) asked whether the Board would be entitled to take the initiative in giving advice to the Government in regard to our relations with the Schuman Community. He will see, in subsection (2) of the new Clause, that:
It shall be the duty of the Board to give advice and information to the Minister on any matters …which have been referred by the Minister to the Board.…
I said there was a two-way traffic. That is one half of it, and it goes on:
… or being matters which, in the opinion of the Board, ought to be taken into account in connection with the said relationship.
That is to say, the Board will be provided with the information by the Government about the proceedings of the Schuman Plan and other matters relating to this problem. The Government can then ask the Board for their advice on specific matters, but it is also open to the Board, on their own initiative, having received this information about the proceedings of the Schuman Plan and having read the document concerning proceedings at Luxembourg, to express an opinion to the Government in regard to some particular issue in which the Board are interested.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I wonder whether the Minister has quite got my point. He is describing the action which the Board may want to take when they have received a report of the activities at


Luxembourg. My point is, supposing the Board from the firms themselves receive commercial information, would they then have the power to take up any matter in that continental information with the Minister?

Mr. Sandys: As I read it, certainly that is how it is intended. Clearly, that is the position. It says:
It shall be the duty of the Board to give advice and information to the Minister on any matters …
we can then leave out the next two lines—
…being matters which, in the opinion of the Board, ought to be taken into account in connection with the said relationship.
It is wide open to the Board to make any representations they like whether they are based on information given to them by the Government or obtained from other sources.
So far as I could detect, those were the only two points in this long debate that related to the new Clause. I have no doubt that hon. Members were entirely in order, since this is a Second Reading debate on a new Clause dealing with very wide and very interesting issues, many of which were raised in this debate. No doubt I should be entirely in order in replying to them, but I should be entirely out of order in my relations with the Foreign Secretary if I were to attempt to express the views of Her Majesty's Government on these very broad issues.
It was remarkable to me to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House vying with one another in their enthusiasm for co-operation with the Schuman Plan and for closer European co-operation. As I have already said, we as a Government attach the highest importance to establishing close, effective and working relations between this country and the Schuman community on these vital issues. It is my hope and belief that this Clause will assist towards that end.
I have already explained that what this Clause does could be done already under the Bill. Nevertheless, we have, by general unanimous feelings on all sides of the House, decided to include this new Clause as a statutory provision, and it may well help us, not only by the machinery it sets up, but also by the atmosphere it creates here and on the

Continent, to promote more successfully and to advance the establishment of that close working relationship which we all have at heart.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(DEVELOPMENT PLANS.)

(1) The Board in order to perform their duty and for the better exercise of their functions under this Act shall from time to time or whenever so required by the Minister consult with such iron and steel producers and such representative organisations as the Board consider appropriate and prepare and submit to the Minister the Board's development plans for the iron and steel industry.

(2) Any such development plan may relate to the whole or to part of the iron and steel industry and to the whole or to part of the Board's said duty and functions.

(3) The Minister may approve any such development plan with or without modification and a development plan so approved shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall be published.

(4) The Board shall perform their said duty and exercise their said functions so as to conform with and promote the execution of development plans approved under this section. —[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. Speaker: In connection with this new Clause, I see an Amendment to Clause 15 in the name of the Minister, in page 15, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Board shall, from time to time, include in their annual report to the Minister a summary prepared in the light of their consultations under subsection (1) of section four of this Act, of the proposals of iron and steel producers for the future provision and use of production facilities, and the summary shall cover such period and such parts of the iron and steel industry as the Board think fit and it shall state the effect which the said proposals will, in the opinion of the Board have on the supply of iron and steel products.
Perhaps the new Clause and this Amendment can be taken together, as they seem to me to cover the same subject matter.

Mr. Strauss: I fully agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be convenient to take the two together, and I hope to show that the Amendment in the Minister's name does not in any way meet the point which we have in


mind. Our purpose in moving this new Clause is a simple one. We want to give to the Board a duty to prepare a development scheme for the industry or for part of the industry and to submit it to the Minister. The Minister, of course, would publish it. We say further that the Board should prepare such a scheme whenever the Minister directs them.
During the Committee stage of this Bill we sought on many occasions in very many Amendments to give the Board a status which we thought they ought to have in the industry, and we also sought to give them authority in regard to a number of important matters, but we did not succeed. Beyond certain functions, which are mostly negative ones such as fixing maximum prices and vetoing development, we found when the Bill emerged from the Committee stage that the authority and the status of the Board were in our view wholly insufficient to enable them to carry out the important duties and functions which are imposed upon them in Clause 3 of the Bill.
We suggest that one of the duties which the Board ought to have is the important one of drawing up from time to time the development plans for the industry or for any part of the industry. We are moving this new Clause on the Report stage for two reasons. One is that we think it essential that this Board should have these functions; and, the second is that when we raised the matter in the Committee stage we got no reply whatsoever from the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the Amendment on 29th January, and if he wants to refer to his speech he will find it in c. 1306-8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He answered the preliminary part of the Amendment which I moved, and which suggested that the Board should be empowered to get the information necessary to put forward development plans, but as to the crux of the Amendment—that the Board, having got the information and prepared the development plan for the industry, then presented it to the Minister—all that the Parliamentary Secretary said was that the Government saw no necessity for it. Otherwise he did not refer in any way at all to the Amendment.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be fair to me and fair with the House. If he will read the speech in question he will see that I pointed out that the Bill already provides that the Minister can get from the Board all the information he needs for his functions in connection with development; and he will see that I met that point quite clearly.

Mr. Strauss: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has heard what I said. I said that our Amendment on the Committee stage asked that the Board should, as one of their functions, prepare the development plan and, for that purpose, should get information from the industry. The Parliamentary Secretary's sole reply was that under the different Clauses of the Bill the Minister could get all the information that was wanted. As to whether it was right or not for the Board to do what we asked, to prepare the development plan for the industry, the Parliamentary Secretary was entirely silent and said not one word. I hope to show to the House that this function should rest on the Board. I believe that our case is simple and unanswerable.
I do not think anyone denies that if the industry is to play its proper part in our national economy it must conform to some broad development plan which is conceived in the interests not only of the iron and steel industry but of the nation. The question arises, Who should draw up that plan? The need for a plan arises from the fact that we have to see that the total quantity of products of the industry is adequate to the nation's requirements for home use and for export purposes, and that, within that total, the total products of various categories is similarly adequate.
In addition a national development plan must ensure that the industry is properly balanced and that its capacity for the production of basic products is roughly equivalent to and not getting out of balance with the productive capacity for the finishing side of the industry. Finally, we need a plan to make sure that there is no waste of our national resources.
One plan of this kind was produced by Steel House after 1945. It was not very difficult to produce this plan, because the industry had not been able to develop


during the war years and big development was necessary. This plan received Government sanction. The next plan would have been produced by the Iron and Steel Corporation, if it had had time to do so, upon information provided by Steel House. It is clearly the responsibility of the public corporation to produce the second iron and steel plan. Further plans may have to be thought out, not only plans covering the industry as a whole but smaller development plans covering certain parts of the industry.
If the Bill becomes an Act and operates over any length of time, who is to be responsible for development plans in the iron and steel industry? I should have thought that responsibility must rest squarely somewhere, and that the opinion of the Minister and of many hon. Gentlemen opposite would be that from the technical angle it is desirable that that responsibility should rest on the Board. The only other possible body upon whom it could rest would be Steel House, that is, the Iron and Steel Federation.
The reason why I say it should rest on the Board rather than on the Iron and Steel Federation is that the Board will to some extent stand outside the industry. In the development plan, a great many conflicting interests are brought together. The demands of some of those interests have to be eliminated and favourable replies given to other interests—and there may have to be compromise among conflicting interests and units—in the interests of the industry and of the nation as a whole.
7.45 p.m.
The body that can best draw up a development plan is not Steel House, where conflicts might affect the balance of the plan, and where jealousies and suspicions are likely to arise when one interest is turned down in favour of another. It is surely better to take a problem of that sort right out of Steel House and to put the responsibility for dealing with it on a Board that will look down upon the industry from on high and in which nobody, we hope, will have any personal or direct interest in any plant.
Such a body could say: "It is in the interests of the industry as a whole that

there should be an expansion of x million tons during the next few years. This and that plant have to expand, and other plants must either not expand or must contract." That is a development plan. The last development plan was along those lines, and somebody has to produce further development plans.
We urge in the Amendment that it should be the Board. On technical grounds it is much better that it should be the Board, but no power is given in the Bill to the Board to do it. The Board are able to veto a particular development plan put forward by a company but that is a very different matter from considering a development plan for the industry as a whole. The Board are also able to report to the Minister if they consider that production facilities, are insufficient, and the Minister can then take steps to build those facilities.
Under the Amendment which the Minister has on the Paper, and which we are considering, the Board are able to give information to the Minister and to publish in their annual report the conclusions that they have come to after consulting with various sections about the productive capacity of the industry. That is something quite different. It is not a question of publishing in the annual report a summary of the conclusions which the Board have arrived at after consultation with the industry about general productive capacity. We want the Board to have the special technical job of producing a development plan for the industry. Therefore the Minister's Amendment does not meet our point of view at all. We require something much more positive and definite.

Mr. Sandys: I should like to be quite clear about what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. He referred to the post-war plan prepared by the Federation. Do I understand that he would like the Board instead of the Federation to carry out the duties in regard to the preparation of a plan such as were previously undertaken by the Federation? In other words, instead of the Federation preparing the plan for the industry as a whole and publishing it the Board would henceforward do what the industry had done?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought


I had been arguing that way all along. The Board should prepare a big plan such as was produced by the Federation in 1945, or smaller plans for the minor parts of the industry, rather than the Federation. Technically it is desirable that the Board should do this job because they stand outside the industry in an independent position, and moreover it will give the Board some authority in the industry and a constructive and positive job to do.
The point of view of the Government is that it is not the duty of the Board to interfere more than is necessary and that we must leave all these things to be decided by the industry, in this case the Federation and Steel House. I think the Government are entirely wrong to stick to that principle. This is a question of supreme national importance. Decisions about the future size and shape of the iron and steel industry will determine the welfare of the whole British economy.
We are not referring to the day-to-day management of the industry. There we do not want any interference by the Government; but in the broad matters upon which so much depends the Board should step in and take responsibility—should interfere, if anyone likes to put it that way. They should take the responsibility on their shoulders and on a national basis, upon data supplied to them by the various units in the iron and steel industry. They should draw up a plan and submit it to the Minister. On technical and psychological grounds it is appropriate and desirable that the Board and no one else—certainly not Steel House—should do this job in the future.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish to support this new Clause principally on the ground adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), that we on this side of the House believe that responsibility for the development of this major industry should rest primarily upon the Board. It is true that the steel industry has been in the habit of producing development plans from time to time. Best known to the public was the immediate post-war plan. Following discussion, that was a considerable modification of the plan originally put forward by the Iron and Steel Federation. But that is not the end of the story, because I understand that

what one might call the second post-war development plan is now under discussion, and has, in fact, been prepared by the Federation.
I have before me several quotations from the "Financial Times" and the "Manchester Guardian" referring to this plan as it was first adumbrated in June of last year. I believe it was presented to the Government about November. It deals with the expenditure of some £300 million during the next five years of development and is a Federation plan. I admit that, owing to political circumstances, the Iron and Steel Corporation have never been able to exercise that authority over the Iron and Steel Federation which we on this side of the House believe they should have been able to do; but the point, so far as this Bill is concerned, is surely that we on this side of the House—holding the principles that we do—should make it very clear that we think the responsibility for a development plan for this great industry should be most firmly laid upon the Board, and not upon a voluntary association, however powerful or intelligent it may be.
When these matters are discussed in what is, after all, a glorified trade association, there is bound to be an atmosphere of, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." There is bound to be a certain amount of, shall we say, friendly accommodation between people associated in the same industry. But the conclusions to which they may come for reasons of their own, including sometimes personal reasons, may not necessarily be the best possible conclusions when viewed objectively. I believe it is the intention of the Government to take some measure of responsibility, but we wish to make it clear that that responsibility should be laid upon the Board.
We also wish to make it clear that the Minister, having considered proposals put forward by the Board, and not by a private association only, and when those proposals have been discussed and modified if need be, shall lay the development plan before Parliament; that it shall be published, so that the public may have some idea of what is proposed for one of our basic industries.
It is suggested by the Minister's Amendment in Clause 15, which we were told we may discuss with this new


Clause, that all that is required is that in the annual report the Board should provide a summary of the proposals for future provision: and that the summary should cover.
such period and such parts of the iron and steel industry as the Board think fit and it shall state the effect which the said proposals will, in the opinion of the Board have on the supply of iron and steel products.
I have no doubt that it will be most useful to have a summary of those proposals in the annual reports. But we all know the kind of time-table of annual reports. They provide useful material for general discussion of principles, but they usually appear anything from six to 18 months after the period under discussion. The suggestion of the Minister, therefore, is useful so far as it goes, in supplying us with information which may be of great value to historians. I am not suggesting that we should not do all we can to assist those who like to study these matters, but it is absolutely irrelevant from the point of view of having any practical effect upon whether or not a development plan should be approved. It is neither here nor there.
We cannot possibly pretend that the Minister's Amendment is in any way relevant to the point we are making in this proposed new Clause, that the function of preparing and presenting development plans should be laid upon the Board; that plans, having been laid before the Minister and discussed by him, should thereupon be laid before Parliament. I hope that we shall have some discussion on this point, because extremely important development plans are now being discussed. They have not yet been vouchsafed to the public, as I understand, but presumably something will emerge sooner or later.
I hope that this new Clause will be considered very carefully. We do not think the situation is satisfactory when the programme for such a very important industry is left virtually in the hands of a private trade association.

Mr. Fienburgh: If the Board is not given the right to formulate development plans for the industry we shall have to try to discover who is to formulate those plans—if, indeed, they are to be formulated. The first possibility is that there will be no long-term development plans at all. That would lead to chaos, not

only within the industry, but in the economy generally. I doubt whether investors in this industry would be prepared to invest unless there were a longterm plan within the framework of which they could invest. Otherwise, they would be in the position of people placing large sums of money on the gambling table when the roulette wheel is spinning.
There could be no certainty about plans in the industry and, therefore, there would be every likelihood of complete chaos reigning in a very short time. I am sure that the Minister does not desire or expect that. He obviously expects, as was made clear in his interjection to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that the British Iron and Steel Federation will itself formulate the long-term development plans of the industry as on the pattern to date. The interjection of the Minister, when he took up the point made by my right hon. Friend, gave the impression that he rather expected that the Federation would, as before, formulate the development plans——

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I was asking for information. I asked what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had in mind. I expressed no personal opinion.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Fienburgh: Then we are still in doubt. Unless this new Clause is accepted, the Board will not be given the duty of formulating a development plan. The Minister certainly does not think that it is his duty to do so. I am sure that he would not want the industry to remain in chaos in its development plans. I hope that he will elucidate when he replies to the debate. But if it is in his mind at all that the Federation should be regarded as an instrument of longterm planning in this industry, we might look rather more closely at some of the development plans which have been put forward.
We should remember that the Federation was formed in 1934 with the duty and objective of drawing up a development plan for the industry. Up to the outbreak of war in 1939, after five years, no plan had been forthcoming. We do not make too much of the fact that no plan was produced during the war because most of the officers of the


Federation were employed at that time as officials of the Ministry of Supply. Not until June, 1945, when the Caretaker Government were in office was a letter sent from the Government to the Federation asking that their post-war development plans should be outlined.
Within a short period of three months apparently the Federation were able to survey, to calculate, to weigh and to look at all the details within this enormously complicated industry and to produce a plan. The first plan was produced in August, 1945. In the meantime, the Labour Government had been elected with the item of steel nationalisation in their mandate from the electorate. It became clear, in those circumstances, that a hasty hotch-potch of a thrown-together development plan spun out of practically nothing within three months would certainly not be satisfactory to a Labour Government even though it had been anticipated that it might be satisfactory to a Conservative Government.
So the plan was taken away—buried, scrapped—and in another four months we had a further development plan. In December, 1945, the plan which we now know as the post-war development plan of the steel industry was finally produced. It postulated a target of 15 million tons production. It was very strongly criticised at the time by economists, steel masters and politicians on the line that the production target envisaged in the plan was certainly not high enough.
Then two other interesting developments happened in this train of careful and logical planning based upon deep thought and research. When the Labour Government produced a White Paper reiterating their intention to nationalise the industry this plan, which was supposed to be a long-term plan, was immediately amended, and the target for the industry was increased from 15 million to 16 million tons. Later, when we went further in the Labour Government and the Bill to nationalise the industry was first introduced, this carefully thought out plan was once again amended in a very short time. This time a target of 18 million tons was put forward.
Here we have no long-term planning at all. This increase in the prospective target of the industry was obviously a bid for absolution against nationalisa-

tion. It was clear to us that the Federation had not really been planning at all but had been putting down target figures based not on an overall survey of the industry, but on an agglomeration of the separate development plans put forward by the individual steel-making firms. One can have a kind of development plan if one simply takes all the plans of the separate firms, adds them together, puts a rule underneath, tots up the total and says that it is a plan. But in realistic, economic terms that is not a plan at all.
In realistic economic terms one development proposal must be weighed carefully against the other. That was never done in the writing of development plans by the Federation. That task had to be done later when some of these competitive plans began to impinge one upon the other. At that stage the exercise of supervision and control by the Ministry and by the Corporation had to be introduced to make the plan work at all. But this planning in the hands of the Federation, when it began to impinge upon the plans of the individual firms—when indeed to some small extent it indicated that firms might not be able to go ahead just as they had wished—created the most violent opposition within the industry.
We recall that it was reported in the "Financial Times" of 24th May, 1946, that the Chairman of the South Durham Steel Works, addressing his annual meeting, said:
We have continually opposed the Federation's proposals as affecting our works—we take the view that we ourselves know best the particular necessities of our own plant.
The Skinningrove Iron Company, in a letter read by the Minister of Supply of that day to the House of Commons, on 27th May, 1946, said:
We entirely disagree with the implications…in the report as to the future of these works,…and the Chairman of this Company—has already written to the British Iron and Steel Federation—to this effect." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 847.]
Clearly, the component firms within the industry were only prepared to accept the long-term planning when it did not impinge on the proposals that they themselves had in mind for their own companies and concerns.
There is within the Federation, within the proposed powers of the Board and


within the powers of the Minister no direct authority whereby any firm can be made to adhere to a general plan if it does not feel that it is desirable in its own interests. Of course, the Federation has some power and sanction. Of course there is a high degree of organisation in the iron and steel industry. They have always been prepared to organise on prices and on the creation and use of a central fund. They have always recognised the need to co-operate on raw material supplies. They have always recognised the need for restrictive co-operation, but they have never recognised the need for expansive co-operation along the lines which will be needed if a development plan is, first, to be realistic and, second, to be put into operation.
What we suggest in this new Clause is simple. The Board should have the power, first, to obtain the information and secondly, to draw up a comprehensive plan for the whole industry. We know full well that within this emasculated Bill as it stands the Board will have no power to do anything once a plan has been formulated. They will not have any power to make any of the companies or the Federation take any special line of action. But one thing at least will be done, and that is that the plan for the development of this most vital industry will be drawn up objectively, in the light of the national requirements, and it will serve as a touchstone against which we can measure the actual performance of the industry.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Nobody would dispute the need for a development plan in this industry. Nobody would dispute the need to publish such a plan. That is common ground. The question is, whose development plan should it be? The speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite have tended to argue that it must be the product of a double influence—the companies' plans and the Board's plan. I suggest, on the contrary, that it should be the product of three agencies—the companies, the trade association and the Board.
In the last resort the ultimate responsibility is on the Board, because it is the Board who can report to the Minister that the plan envisaged is inadequate in certain respects. Therefore, they have the last word. The one reason of any

apparent cogency advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite for cutting out the trade association was—in the phrase of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—that there would be a lot of back-scratching. I think that she went on to use the word "accommodation." Members of the trade association would know each other and instead of the plan being designed to meet the real needs of the industry, it would be designed in the light of the personal friendships and prejudices of the people concerned.
That is a negative argument. I do not think that there is much in it. It seems to me that these plans have been drawn up by the central association in a spirit of neutrality and of objectivity. The negative reason apart, there seems to me to be an important practical and positive reason why we should still include the trade association. The hon. Lady opposite mentioned that a second development plan is in course of preparation. Quite clearly, one of the first tasks of the new Board will be to review that plan and come to certain decisions on what is proposed, but, if this new Clause is approved and is incorporated in the Bill, the Board would have to begin the preparation of this plan afresh and de novo, and that would certainly delay the completion and execution of the plan. I should have thought that it would have been very wasteful to disregard the accumulated experience of the trade association.

Mrs. White: I do not think that the argument which the hon. Member is now putting forward is a valid one, because, after all, under the proposed new Clause, the Board will be under an obligation to consult such iron and steel producers, and that does not rule out that they should consult through the trade associations. Therefore, the work of the trade associations would not be wasted.

Mr. Jones: I think that the tenor of the argument advanced by the party opposite was to cut out the trade association altogether and to establish a direct relationship between the Board and the companies. If I am wrong in that understanding, I quite willingly apologise. It seems to me that the trade association, however malign we think its influence may be, by the very fact that it has an accumulation of experience in this matter, could make a valuable contribution.


It could study the schemes submitted by individual companies and put forward suggestions of its own, with the result that a plan would evolve which the Board would amend in its turn according to its own light.
I would have thought that it would have been very useful, even for hon. Members opposite, to know exactly where the Board diverged in their views from the trade association; if the new Clause is accepted, they would have no such information at all, the plan having been entirely decided in direct relationship between the Board and the companies, with nobody else in it. I should have thought that there was some point in knowing what differences of view existed between the industry and the Board, and I therefore think that the new Clause goes too far.
On the other hand, I must admit that what proposes to be the alternative Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend seems to me not to go far enough. It seems to provide for company plans, but for no plan over and above those of the individual units, if my understanding of it is right, and I hope I am wrong. That seems to me not to be going far enough, and—perhaps as usual—I would therefore myself favour something in between, something going not quite as far as the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman opposite but going a little further than the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I am rather surprised at the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), who usually speaks with such conviction and knowledge on this subject, and whose objection to this new Clause is that we should be able to tell where the Board and the Federation fall out. If the hon. Gentleman thinks they will fall out so often that this information is of great significance, that is probably a very good reason for not proceeding with this Bill at all. It is a very curious reason to advance against the new Clause that, unless the Board is kept out of the ring and the trade associations and the companies are allowed to do the planning first, that might mean that the Board would have to start studying the subject afresh.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not saying that the companies and the trade associations should do the planning first and that the Board should come in after. The way I envisage it is that the companies should put forward certain schemes and that the trade associations and the Board should study them together. The trade associations might make certain amendments and additions and suggestions of their own, and, similarly, the Board could do so, with the result that the ultimate scheme would be the product of all three.

Mr. Mulley: I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman envisaged the position of the Board as that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to schemes submitted by a local authority for approval. If he will read the new Clause he will find that we specifically include representative organisations, and we say:
The Board…shall…consult with such iron and steel producers and such representative organisations as the Board consider appropriate. …
I want to commend the new Clause to the Minister very strongly, and, since I know that perhaps my own words will not carry very much weight, I want to back them with the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which reported on the existing position and future developments of the iron and steel industry in 1937. I have here the recommendations of that committee, which were highly esteemed by the party opposite. They were, I think, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who quoted them from a pamphlet issued by the party opposite.
On the question of development, the report, referring to the very critical situation of the industry in the 1930's, says. in paragraph 44:
We nevertheless think it unfortunate that there were not in existence at the time the proposals were under discussion any arrangements for ensuring that they—and any schemes of development of the like nature—should be considered in relation to the structure and organisation of the industry as a whole, and to the national economy, and with a fuller regard for all the social considerations involved than either the local concerns whose co-operation was sought, or even the Federation itself, were competent to give. The desirability of such arrangements is in our view the outstanding lesson to be drawn from the Jarrow episode, and is a matter with which we deal fully later in this Report.


In paragraph 46, which is headed "Development and Planning," the Report says:
we start from two broad propositions. The first is that there cannot be a return to the unorganised conduct and almost casual development and the largely unrestricted competition at home and from abroad which characterised the industry until 1932.
The second quotation from this paragraph, and this has been quoted by the party opposite in commendation of this Bill, is:
The State cannot divest itself of all responsibility as to the conduct of an industry so far reaching in its scope, so vital to the national well-being, so largely dependent on State fiscal policy for its prosperity, and now being brought into a closely knit organisation.
The same paragraph goes on to say:
We shall refer in several places to the desirability, in our judgment, of the policy of the British Iron and Steel Federation and of the various associations, whether affiliated to the Federation or not, being subject to some oversight by a body wholly independent of the industry in so far as that policy affects the general public interest.
I do not think I need to add any words of mine to the recommendations of that distinguished Committee, which reported in 1937, and I believe their views are worthy of being taken into consideration in discussing the future development of the industry today.

Mr. Low: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and some of his hon. Friends have sought to exaggerate the difference between us on this matter. One of the reasons why they may have exaggerated that difference is that they have not taken into account the functions of the Board, and, in particular, the Board's duties as laid down in this Bill. I shall refer to them as I try to answer the points put from the opposite side of the Committee and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), and as I try to analyse the new Clause which we are now discussing, and the Amendment proposed by the Government to Clause 15, which we are also discussing at the same time.
As I understand it, the new Clause really covers three points. The first is that the Board shall, after consultation with producers and representative organisations, prepare and submit to the Minister development plans for the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that was

the main point; I certainly think it was the main point on which he concentrated his speech. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) attached a little more importance than did the right hon. Gentleman to the two further points.
The second point is that the Minister would then consider the plans and, if he approved them, would lay them before Parliament and publish them. The third point is that the Board would then perform their duties and functions under the Bill so as to conform to, and promote the execution of, those plans which the Minister had approved. I think that is a fair summary of the three points covered by the new Clause.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall sought to make as a point against me the way I had dealt with a similar Amendment during the Committee stage. He inferred that I attached no importance to it at all and said that I did not bother to answer what the Opposition consider to be the crux of their case in this matter, which is that someone ought to prepare a development plan for the industry. As I tried to indicate to him in an interruption, I thought I had dealt with that point, albeit briefly, in the course of the last debate. Perhaps I can deal with it now.
The argument was that the someone preparing the development plan for the industry ought to be the Board. We did not argue in the previous debate, and are not going to argue now, that development programmes for the iron and steel industry ought not to be made from time to time. Indeed, as the House well knows, the 1946 plan was produced by the industry as the result of a request made by the Caretaker Government of my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister in May, 1945. That plan was made by the industry through the Federation.
In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear in answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend that what he was envisaging at the moment was that the Board should act in exactly the same way as the Federation had acted in the case of that earlier plan. I see no reason at all why the Board should not so act. Under this Bill they have all the authority of a trade association, and much more. In addition to such influence—"sanctions" was the word used by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh)—as the


Federation may have, the Board have the power to veto under Clause 5 of the Bill, which no hon. Gentleman who has so far spoken in this debate has mentioned.
It should be clearly understood on both sides of the House how the development plan is to be made. Clause 4 (1), of the Bill really covers this point. The Board are to consult producers and representative organisations
with a view to securing the provision and use by iron and steel producers of such production facilities in Great Britain as may be required for the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
Specific proposals for development in individual works are to come upwards—as I think they have always come upwards under the Federation system—from the manufacturing units of the industry.
The Board's consultation will ensure that their ideas on development are fully considered by the industry and that the industry's proposals will not be uncoordinated. The primary duty in this respect is to consult industry in order to secure the best proposals for promoting
the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
That is the primary duty and the thing which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman wants to achieve by his plan.
In the course of the previous debate some Opposition Members spoke as if the Board's primary duty was only to make a plan. But, surely, the plan is the means to the end. Even the proposals of the individual producers are only means to an end. What we in this House want to see, and what the Board will want to secure, is that proposals are made and carried out for the best development of the industry according to the terms I have used.
There cannot be anything between the two sides of the House on that point. and I do not think there is quite so much between my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and myself as he may think. I hope we can examine the matter in that spirit. I sought to point out, during the Committee stage on 29th January, that the Board should report general development proposals to the Minister. We thought then, as I have said, that the Bill as drafted

enabled the Minister to force the Board to make such a report on general programmes if the Board did not do so voluntarily. That was the case I put and the effect I meant to convey in the last paragraph of my speech, though I must apologise if the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not see it in that way.
After further consideration, we came to the view that it would be right to lay down in the Bill that the Board should from time to time include in their annual report a summary of future development proposals of the whole industry or parts of it—this summary to be prepared in the light of their consultations under Clause 4—and that they should state what in their opinion would be the effect of such proposals on the supply of iron and steel products.
That provision was criticised in somewhat derisory terms by the hon. Member for Flint, East. I think it is important that the Board should give their view of the effect of such proposals on the ingot tonnage, on the increase of rolling and strip capacity and on other parts of the industry. That, I believe, is a matter on which the House, when it read the report, would expect to have the Board's opinion.

Mrs. White: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that this information can have very much practical effect if given in the form suggested, because of the time factor. I have in my hand the report of the present Corporation for the period ended 30th September, 1951, the latest report available. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Board under the new set-up agreed some proposals and made certain forecasts based on those proposals in, say, November of any year, that information would not be available to the public until August, not of the year following, but of the year following that.
That means, as I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would agree, and as I tried to point out, that as a matter of some historical interest it might help us in debating a principle in this House, but it would be of no practical effect in helping the planning of the industry, unless development of the industry is going to be even slower than we expect.

Mr. Low: I see the point, but surely the hon. Lady is forgetting that what we are considering here is a periodical development programme, covering a number of years well ahead. I do not think that that would get out of date in the course of a few months. Indeed, the points made by one of her hon. Friends was that these programmes last some time and, of course, are changed as conditions change.
But I see the piont, and we will consider it if there is time between now and the time when we have to move the Amendment to Clause 15. The difference is between putting such a proposal in an annual report and making a special report. But I should like to stress again that we are dealing here with development programmes covering years ahead and that such a report will not be out of date in a few months.
I will admit that our Amendment does not cover the second and third points which are raised in this new Clause, except that it ensures that the proposals will be published and brought before Parliament. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall may remember that a provision that the programme of development should be laid before Parliament was not included in his Act. But the Minister's approval and the requirement that the Board should act only in conformity with the Minister's approval are not covered in our Amendment.
The reasons for our not wanting to cover those two points are, firstly, that in our opinion it would confuse the functions of the Minister and the Board—functions which we have tried to keep separate throughout this Bill. It is the duty of the Board to secure the best development proposals for the industry, best, that is, in the light of the industrial test of the promotion of an efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. I have no doubt that when programmes are being prepared there will be consultation between the Board and the Minister as regards the national interest, but the test which the Board will apply will be that which I have just mentioned. Indeed, the Minister will look to the Board to work on that basis. So we think that it is not the right procedure for these development programmes to be brought

forward subject to the Minister's approval and published, as it were, with his approval.
We have an even stronger objection against the third and last point of this new Clause. Surely the House must agree that over a large and complex industry like the iron and steel industry, in times of technical progress such as there is today, there can be no rigid planning for a period of years ahead. By rigid planning I mean the insistence upon a plan approved by the Minister in 1950, for example, and to which we would have to work whatever might come afterwards.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall shakes his head and appears to be thinking that I am making too much of the point. But his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who attached importance to the certainty of planning ahead, would take the point that we want to avoid rigidity. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman himself would agree with many of the amendments made to the 1946 plan and would agree—although I know that he will not commit himself on all of them—that many of them were rightly made in the light of new conditions. It is only reasonable that that sort of thing should happen in the future.
In our opinion the new Clause seems to fall into the error of assuming that a plan, once made and approved by the Minister, must be rigidly adhered to unless the Minister approves of a change.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I have read too much into the Clause I apologise. I was not really supposing that that was what hon. Members opposite intended; I am merely saying that I am advised that that might be the effect of the Clause if it were accepted as it is.
It may interest the House to be reminded that in 1946, although the Labour Government published the development plan, they never approved it in detail. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in the Ministry of Supply—now Lord Wilmot—said:
… the Government accept much in these reports as a sound basis for industrial reconstruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 844.]
The right hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) said:
We cannot be committed to every detail of it, but it is an able and valuable contribution to the discussion of this problem."—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1108.]
On their past practice, therefore, I should think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have insisted on the second and third points in this new Clause.
So we come back to the first point. We have to satisfy ourselves whether or not there is the big difference between us that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out at the beginning of his speech. We say that if the House will bear in mind the Board's duty under Clauses 3 and 4 and also the Board's powers of veto with regard to certain development schemes under Clause 5—and if they will then consider the Government's Amendment to Clause 15, we have got all that we need to ensure that the Minister, Parliament and the country are made aware of the general programme of development of the industry, or part of the industry, over a period of years.
What everyone will wish to know is what are the actual proposals which are likely to be adopted and proceeded with. That is what it is desirable to publish, and it is exactly that point which is covered in the Government Amendment. For that reason I hope the House will reject the new Clause and, when the time comes, will decide to adopt the Government Amendment to Clause 15.

Mr. Strauss: If the House will permit me, I should like to tell the Government that we do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's conclusion that there is no difference between our proposals and the Government's proposals. The Government's proposals are concerned with the publication, in the annual reports, of certain consultations which the Minister has had—I do not know how long previously.
Then he relies on a certain general authority which the Board have for supervision and consultation in connection with the productive capacity of the industry. We are asking for something quite different, which has no relation to the Government Amendment appearing later on the Order Paper. We say that the Board should be given the specific duty to prepare and submit to the Minister a development plan for the iron and steel industry.
From time to time they should realise that it is their job and should work to

that end, should collect the information and prepare the plan. It is a big job. The plan should then be submitted to the Minister and should be considered by Parliament. It need not be a rigid plan which cannot be altered; no one has suggested that at all. But someone should have the job of carrying out this important task in the industry which will affect the prosperity of different parts of the country and greatly affect the productive capacity of the country. We say that it should be the duty of the Board to do that work.

Mr. Sandys: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, I should like him to make quite clear what the differences are between us. I know that there are certain differences, but I do not believe they are as wide as he suggests. There is no question of our changing our mind on the point; we are not prepared to have the development plans submitted to the Government for their approval and then, presumably, submitted to Parliament for their approval.
What I do not understand is where the right hon. Gentleman sees such a great difference between our proposals. It may be that our Amendment is not worded in such an attractive and spectacular way as his new Clause, but I should like to know where he sees this great difference between what we suggest should be the functions of the Board in connection with development plans and the functions which he would like to see the Board given. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman earlier in order to be quite clear what function he wanted to see given to the Board.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Sandys: I have not yet spoken on the new Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, but the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is in possession of the House.

Mr. Strauss: I am prepared to give way.

Mr. Sandys: I was anxious to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman before he had committed himself too far. He was about to invite his right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby,


and that is why I thought this was the right moment for me to intervene. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman earlier with the specific object of asking what in his opinion should be the function of the Board in relation to the preparation of development plans. He made it clear that in his opinion the Board ought in future to carry out the duties which have previously been carried out by the Federation. As I understand it, that is precisely the function which the Board will be able to carry out under the Bill.
One hon. Member opposite has said that there is no objection to the Federation or other trade associations continuing to do their work but that the Board is the body which should finally assemble the proposals of the various sections of the industry, as the Federation have done, and attempt to hammer out between them a satisfactory development plan. The Federation have no power to compel, nor have the Board. The only important additional power which the Board have is the power of veto. We feel that there is no difference between us about the functions of the Board in this connection.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) asked a question about timing. We are quite prepared to consider whether the Board's report should be an annual report or a special report which could be produced earlier. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points before he urges his hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby. I will give him an assurance that I will take into account some of the points which have been made before we reach our Amendment to Clause 15.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I did consider the arguments which the Parliamentary Sec

retary put forward very carefully, and I have considered, and so have my hon. Friends, the wording of the Bill very carefully, and, in our view, whereas the Board would, no doubt, come somewhere into the picture at some stage when a development plan was being thought out, they are not given the specific task, to which they would have to devote a good deal of their attention, of preparing every few years, may be, a development plan for the industry or part of the industry.

I do not accept for a moment that the wording either of Clause 4—I do not want to waste time discussing it line by line—or Clause 3 specifically gives this task to the Board, and we say that if the Board are to be any use at all they must have this specific function of themselves devising—on information supplied by others, being above the battle, so to speak, by Steel House and the Federation—a development plan in the interests of the industry and of the country.

We say—and here there is plain disagreement between the Government and us—that the plan should be considered by the Minister and submitted to Parliament, so that Parliament can know what is happening, what is to happen in each iron and steel district, and ask the Minister Questions and, if necessary, make a row about it, and say it ought to be much bigger, or much less, or that it is out of balance, if it thinks so.

For these reasons I can only advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the new Clause and say that the alternative offered by the Government is unacceptable.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 258.

Division No. 115.]
AYES
[8.44 p.m.


Achland, Sir Richard
Blackburn, F.
Collick, P. H.


Adams, Richard
Blenkinsop, A
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Albu, A. H
Blyton, W A
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H
Crosland, C. A. R.


Andersen, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G.
Grossman, R. H. S.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowden, H. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F G
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A F
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Balfour, A
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Bartley, P.
Carmichael, J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Champion, A. J
Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W Bromwich)


Bence, C. R.
Chapman, W. D
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C


Bann, Hon. Wedgwood
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edelman, M.


Benson, G
Clunie, J
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Beswick, F
Coldrick, W
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly).




Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
McGovern, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Fienburgh, W.
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Follick, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Swingler, S. T.


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hannan, W.
Murray, J. D.
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Hardy, E. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hargreaves, A.
O'Brien, T.
Timmons, J.


Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Tomney, F.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Orbach, M.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Viant, S. P.


Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


Holmes, Horace (Homsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.
West, D. G.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hynd, H.(Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.




Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wigg, George


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Pryde, D. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willey, F. T.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John
Williams, Renand, (Wigan)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
William, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rhedes, H.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Keenan, W.
Richards, R.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wyatt, W. L.


King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. F.


Kinley, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Mr. Pearson and


Lewis, Arthur
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cary, Sir Robert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Alport, C. J. M.
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Black, C. W
Cole, Norman


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Colegate, W. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Banks, Col. C.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Barber, Anthony
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Deedes, W. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullard, D. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullock, Capt. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Donner, P. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Drewe, G







Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robertson, Sir David


Elliot, Rt Hon. W.E
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersheld)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fell, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A T
Robson-Brown, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fisher, Nigel
Linslead, H. N.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Garner-Evans, E. H
McCallum, Major D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, R. Donald


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Gough, C. F. H
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimond, J.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spearman, A C. M


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Speir, R. M


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major S. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)



Hay, John
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H
Maulding, R.
Storey, S.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John
Studholme, H. G.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Lt. Col. Sir Thomas
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hinchingbraoke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Teeling, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holt, A. F.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton- Kemsley, Col C. N.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P




Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Tilney, John


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Oakshott, H. D.
Touche, Sir Gordan


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Odey, C. W.
Turner, H. F. L


Howard, Hon. Greville (St Ives)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Torten, R. H.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Hulbert Wing Cdr N. J
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wade, D. W.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Osborne, C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Wellwood, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, D.
Preforms, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Raikes, Sir Visitor
York, C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.



Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Major Conant and Mr. Wills.


Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Renton, D. L. M.

Clause 2.—(THE IRON AND STEEL BOARD.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(6) Before appointing a person to he the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board, the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person has no substantial financial interest in any undertaking of an iron and steel producer, and the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to the

chairman and every whole-time member of the Board that he has no such interest; and any person who is, or whom the Minister proposes to appoint and who has consented to be, the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board shall, whenever requested by the Minister so to do, furnish to him such information as the Minister considers necessary for the performance by the Minister of his duties under this subsection.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House


to discuss this Amendment together with the Amendments to the Second Schedule, page 36, line 5, and page 36, line 11.

The Solicitor-General: I think it will be convenient for the House to consider these three Amendments together because, although they will appear, if accepted, in different parts of the Act, when it becomes an Act, they really relate to much the same topic. They appear in different parts of the Bill because the Schedule as originally drafted made a reference to disclosure, and it is convenient to have reference to the duty to disclose in the same place, namely, in the Schedule.
These Amendments meet, I hope to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, points raised in the course of our discussions in Committee, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) will see that so far as the first Amendment is concerned it is in very similar form to the Amendment moved by the Opposition, but which went wider than the present one does.
The Amendment I have moved places fairly and squarely upon the Minister the duty to satisfy himself in relation to the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board, before he makes the appointment, that that person has no substantial financial interest in any undertaking of an iron and steel producer. We had some discussion in Committee on more than one occasion as to the exact meaning of the word "substantial," and I hope that we shall not have to embark upon a similar discussion now. I think we all know what the word really means.
The House will see that not only has the Minister the duty of satisfying himself on that matter with regard to the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board before appointment, but he has by this Amendment the duty of satisfying himself from time to time, with regard to the chairman or a whole-time member of the Board, that no such interest is held. I do not doubt that these parts of the Amendment will meet with approval, because they are almost the same as the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Gentleman.
Then we go on to give the Minister power to obtain such information as the Minister requires and considers necessary

for the performance by him of his duties. That is to say, we give to the Minister a power to obtain information from someone whom he is considering appointing, so as to satisfy himself that that prospective chairman or whole-time member has no substantial financial interest in any such undertaking.
9.0 p.m.
Quite apart from the duties which the new subsection (6) casts upon the Minister, we are by the Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 36, lines 5 and 11, putting upon every person, whole-time or part-time, the obligation not only of disclosing interests to the Minister before appointment, but also of disclosing to the Minister and to the Board any interests which come into their possession one way or another after appointment.
I suggested in the Committee that I thought that that would be an improvement. The hon. Member for Rotherham agreed, and I think that these changes go a long way to meet the views that were voiced and to secure that the chairman and people who sit on the Board as whole-time members have no financial interest which is likely to conflict with the performance of their duties, and that so far as all members are concerned there should be adequate disclosure, both to their colleagues on the Board and to the Minister, of any interest subsequently acquired.

Mr. Jack Jones: The three Amendments agree substantially with what we had in mind when we moved our own Amendments, and we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for introducing them. Indeed, they go a shade further than we originally asked or even anticipated; that is, in regard to the disclosure of other interests as well as direct interests in the iron and steel industry. We agree to the Amendments, and in doing so express our thanks.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(SUPERVISION OF IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY BY BOARD.)

Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after "supervision," to insert "and control."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it might be convenient if the next Amendment, also in line 40, were discussed at the same time.

Mr. Jones: It is our view that the two Amendments have rather different meanings, and if the Committee agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we suggest that they be taken separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Jones: I had something to say on Second Reading about the powers of the Board, and at that time, after reasonable scrutiny of the Bill, I thought that the Board's powers were negligible. As we have gone along and been able to enter into more detail as to what the Board can and cannot do, I have come to the conclusion that the powers of the Board are completely negligible, except in one respect; that is to say, they have power to veto any proposed extension or expansion; they have power to stop development, but they have no power whatever within the orbit of the Bill to do anything objective with the idea of putting into real operation what they are called upon to supervise.
There may be a lot of conjecture and different explanations about the meaning of "supervision" and "control." Our idea of supervision is that the body to be set up, comprising these extremely able people, shall supervise the whole of the industry. They have an enormous range of subjects to cover. The extent of their duties was laid down in the White Paper in 23 paragraphs, and these have now been increased by the addition of their duties and obligations under the Schuman Plan provisos.
We find that the Board have an extensive range of work to cover but have no power whatever to implement their findings in regard to their consultations and their intensive research in the application of their wisdom to all the variety of subjects with which they will have to deal. We believe that is wrong. We know that the Government have already indicated to us in no uncertain terms that they will not have anything to do with the control of the industry by the Board. We are, therefore, concerned about this Board having only supervisory work, not even power.
The Board are set up to promote efficient production, to see that plants are efficient, that there is education, research, expansion and extension, to see that raw material supplies are adequate and the distribution of raw materials correct.

Having supervised and made contact with all sectors and having spent many hours in consultation with the powers that will be, the Board will then find they have not the slightest power at all to implement any of the things that they think should be done in the public interest, particularly if those who ought to do them will not do them. We think that is wrong.
We believe that this Board, who are set up primarily to work in the public interest, should have the power to control the industry, and by the word "control" we do not mean what we shall probably be told by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary at the end of this debate—that what we want to set up is a body of snoopers to go round the industry and dictate day-to-day policy on how to run the works, how this or that type of steel should be made and what should be the quantity and the quality. What we do suggest is that in major, fundamental principles affecting the iron and steel industry the Board shall have some control.
This afternoon we had long debates on the vexed problem which is analogous to this question of the Board's powers. I listened with great interest to the last debate on the technical situation, but not a word was said about the sociological situation. We were not able to debate the issue of the location of industry, and we are greatly concerned that here is a Board who are being set up to do a job of work and who have no power to implement that particular job when they have decided what shall be done.
All that the Board can do is to go along to the Minister and say, "We have drawn up this long and carefully prepared report on the situation. We have gone into the whole of the details of the industry and we have decided what shall be done. We have failed to get agreement, and we suggest that you yourself should set about building a steel works." That is provided for in the Bill, but we think it is a bit of window dressing. To put into the Bill provision for something that has already been destroyed by de-nationalisation seems to us to be farcical. I said before, and I say again, that we cannot expect a Tory Minister in this age to build a Government-owned and controlled steel works when he is at the moment taking away all public control


from steel works, for that is diametrically opposed to Government policy.
We think that this Board should have some control, and that where they find that the public interest has not been served they should have the power to do things. We are not suggesting these should be minor, petty. pin-pricking things. The Board should have control and be able to recommend the introduction of new directors where they find that the production capacity has not been used extensively, and they should be able to suggest the introduction of people who will carry out the work. Why should the Board not have the necessary control to put things right where necessary without having to go to the Minister? We could talk for weeks on end as to what the Board should do or might do.
We know what happened to Clause 13. It sought to give the Board some objective work to do, but such work was taken from them. In the first instance, we found the foundry industry getting to work. They looked at the proposals, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is an extremely able representative of Kidderminster, commenced operations and that sector of the industry began to throw mud at the Bill. They plastered it until what had looked like hardboard became like plasterboard. The foundry people are able to make plaster like the stuff I am referring to.
Then the Federation had a look at the Bill. They decided that the Board might have power to do things that the Federation would not want them to do, so the Federation went to work, and at that stage the plasterboard became pasteboard, a thing of paste, a sham. I am satisfied that Steel House has been very much at work since the Bill has been before us. deciding, for example, that Clause 13 gave the Board too much power and should be removed.
We now find ourselves with a Board who can have consultations and can talk about all the things that can be talked about, but who cannot in any shape or form implement any of the decisions they make. That is the crux of our complaint. The Board, consisting of able men receiving high salaries, capable men with the interests of the country at heart, may spend hundreds of hours in consultation and may come to certain conclusions. but

will have no power of control wherewith to implement the decisions they have arrived at.
In the previous debate we put forward the sort of thing we are asking for. There is the question of expansion. If the Minister does not know—and we believe he does not and will probably tell us that he is not aware of the fact—let me inform him that I have been given information from a very authoritative source. I have already heard figures quoted to the nearest ton showing where the next two million tons capacity in this country are to be produced. I have heard figures mentioned in circles that count in the steel industry. There must be some authoritative plan, otherwise figures could not be mentioned. If the Board in their wisdom thought that the plan which is now being talked about and discussed did not suit the public interest, what could the Board do about it?
We have in mind events that are happening in South Wales this very minute. Men are reverting to a six-hour day from an eight-hour day in order to make room for men who have been displaced, and they are willing to receive only three-quarters of their original pay packets in order to absorb men who might otherwise be unemployed. We all knew that Margam was coming into operation and what the results would be. If there had been a plan by the Board, having regard to the sociological conditions that would arise, perhaps some of the work now being done at Appleby Frodingham in the Brigg area could have been done elsewhere. In the Brigg area there is a dearth of labour—750 people are required. At some stage in the operations a thousand people have been wanted.
The Board should be able to plan not only technically and from a structural and industrial point of view, which is very necessary, but with regard to prices and deliveries. We want the Board, after the deliberations that must take place, at the end of the day to have control and power to implement decisions that they will wisely make. We ask the Minister to give careful consideration to this suggestion. We said at the start that the Board had no teeth. If we do not get the Amendment accepted we shall think that even their gums have been pulped. They will not even have gums that are of any use. They will be a facade.


9.15 p.m.
These debates and the refusal by the Minister to accede to our request to give that power to the Board expected by the steel workers of this country, has created great interest among them. I have received telegrams both yesterday and today from 20,000 steel workers, who at their meeting last Saturday objected most vociferously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —well, the representatives of 20,000 of them. I do not think the House would ever charge me with wanting to misrepresent the facts. I refer to the accredited representatives of those 20,000 men, the people who really represent steel workers, not phantoms. If they did not, there would not be the relationship which exists in the industry.
By representatives I do not mean Left-wing jumped-up somebodies from nowhere out to make mischief. They are the best people in the world. They are not—I will repeat the term—jumped-up somebodies from nowhere out to make mischief. There are such people, but not in the steel industry. This matter has caused a great deal of concern. I have in my possession letters referring to the subject from the representatives of 10,000 of my constituents.
If the Minister wishes to keep the good will of the people in the industry, as I believe he does, he must pay serious regard to our request that this Board, instead of being toothless and possessing no powers; instead of being in the position to talk themselves hoarse without being able to do anything, shall be given the power of control by the insertion of these words.

Mr. Fienburgh: I beg to second the Amendment.
It will be a relief to the House to know that I do not propose to go over the arguments adduced in support of a similar Amendment moved in Committee. It is no use trying to argue this point with the Minister in his present frame of mind. As soon as we try to come to grips with him in a concrete argument about whether the industry is to be controlled or not, he elevates himself to a high moral plane far beyond our reach. He puts on, as it were, pasteboard wings and a cardboard halo and says:
Our policy and intention is not to set up an organisation to run and control the iron

and steel industry centrally, but to lead it and guide it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1242.]
I can hear the Minister, wearing his pasteboard wings and cardboard halo, singing. "Lead kindly light" to as hard-bitten a set of businessmen as there has ever been in this country. He also said in Committee:
… the main strength and influence of the Board will depend upon its moral influence and its power of persuasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1243.]
The Minister did not move in the same circles as those in which I was brought up, where a great feature every year was the Sunday school outing. I am sure the school which the right hon. Gentleman attended did not have an outing. Dear and honourable old ladies tried to guide us by using moral persuasion and all that sort of thing. But we still rushed harum-scarum around the countryside, leaving a trail of devastation and breaking our arms and legs ad lib. The iron and steel industry is much stronger and more vicious than an outing of choirboys. No amount of moral persuasion and pious argument, no chanting of, "Lead kindly light," will influence or restrain them from taking any direction they wish to follow.
From my tender years I would not have the impertinence to pretend that I can describe adequately the steel masters of the inter-war years, or indeed of today. I have not come into contact with them very closely and I will fall back, as indeed we often have to, on a quotation which has been used before. I wish to quote Sir William Firth, who himself was a steelmaster. I am sorry to have to refer to him again. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite writhe inwardly whenever I mention his name, and I do not blame them. Incidentally, this is a quotation from the days when he had not fallen out with the Federation. He was still one of their leading men.
Speaking of these gentlemen whom it is hoped to lead by moral persuasion, he said:
Thirty years' close contact with the trade entitles me to believe that I understand its mentality … and it is my recognition of the futility of hoping that individuals will subordinate their private interests to national interests that caused me to criticise the present scheme.
There is a man who knew the industry—speaking of the days before he had fallen


out with the industry—who described adequately and firmly the futility of expecting them to subordinate their private interests in the national interests. Yet the Minister now tells us that he will do it by moral persuasion.
That is why I say that it is no use trying to meet him logic with logic. He is quite beyond our reach. He has gone on to his higher moral plane on this issue. Therefore, although we will press our Amendment, I have not the faintest hope that he will accede to it.

Mr. Sandys: I am quite prepared to face the rebuke of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh). The success of the new organisation which we seek to set up under this Bill will depend mainly upon the leadership of the Board and the co-operation of the industry. I do not believe that that is a source of weakness. If those two elements were not available there would be something seriously wrong with the industry and with the Board. We confidently expect both these elements.
To strengthen the hands of the Board we provide them with powers which we consider effective not because they are numerous but because they are applied at the strategic points—development, prices and raw materials. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said that the Board has an extensive range of supervisory duties but insufficient powers to carry them out. My first observation on that is that the Amendment will not add one jot or tittle to the powers of the Board. It will alter the powers in no way whatsoever.
The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know that conferring control upon some body does not give them any power. No court of law would say that the Board could exercise power over the industry simply because in one Clause of the Bill there was this reference to control over the iron and steel industry. Control would have to be defined precisely so that the courts could interpret what kind of control it was. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who is very wise in these matters, would not interrupt me to say that I was misleading the House.

Mr. Mitchison: No, but if the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to give them control, we hope that he would provide them with the necessary powers to exercise it.

Mr. Sandys: I think it is a good thing to provide the powers and write the Preamble around them afterwards, but it is quite clear, and I wish to make this very plain, that the insertion of this word "control" in this Clause will not make any difference whatsoever to the Board's powers, and that is the first point.
The hon. Gentleman also said that by control he did not mean an army of snoopers or people who would try to dictate to the industry in regard to its day to day management. He was a little vague as to exactly what he meant by control. He mentioned a lot of things which he would like the Board to be able to do, but which the insertion of this word would not give them power to do. The hon. Member for Islington, North, who has now left the Chamber, in his speech in Committee, said that he had looked up the word "control" in a dictionary, and had found that one of its meanings was "to exercise power over."
Having listened to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and to other hon. Members earlier during the Committee stage, I believe that, by and large, that is what hon. Members opposite mean by control—" to exercise power over."
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester): Assuming that what the Minister says about the word "control" is correct, and I must confess that I think it is, would he be prepared to substitute the word "direction" for "control"?

Mr. Sandys: I am trying to deal with the Amendment which has been moved, and I want to be clear. I am not trying to "pull a fast one" on anybody, but I believe that that interpretation represents the view of hon. Members opposite about the meaning of "control"; that is to say, "to exercise power over." In other words, we give special powers, and they exercise these powers over the industry.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Turner-Samuels rose——

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, but I cannot give way; I must make myself clear, because unless one is clear on the subject to which one is addressing one's remarks,


it is very difficult to reply to the debate. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is in agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, that a good interpretation of the word "control" is "to exercise power over" in this case, over the iron and steel industry.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. We did not want an army of snoopers, but we did want the Board to have powers of control. I am quite willing to accept the definition that they should have this power, after consultation, and I accept the definition "to exercise powers over," because that is exactly what we want.

Mr. Sandys: It is just as well that we should know what we mean by control.
The purpose of Clause 3 is to define in general terms the duties and functions of the Board. The hon. Member is quite right; they have wide duties of supervision over the iron and steel industry, and the purposes for which these supervisory duties are to be exercised are summarised in this Clause, namely,
to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply … of iron and steel products,
That is the objective towards which the Board are asked to work; those are its marching orders. Under Clause 3 they are given wide supervisory duties, but no powers with which to carry them out. The insertion of the word" control" in the Preamble to Clause 3 will not by itself give to the Board any added powers.
9.30 p.m.
In other parts of the Bill the Board have powers relating to development. prices and raw materials, and those powers are obviously there to be used when necessary in order to promote
the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
The only effect of the Amendment, as I see it, would be, instead of leaving the exercise of those powers to some extent permissive, to require the Board to use them in order to promote
the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
Do the Opposition fear that, without this Amendment, the Board would fail to exercise the powers entrusted to them when necessary in order to further this objective? If not, I cannot see any

object or purpose in inserting the word "control" in the Clause. The only effect of inserting the word—especially if it were interpreted more fully—would be to make sure that the Board exercised those powers in regard to prices, raw materials and development when necessary in order to carry out the duties set out in Clause 3 (1).
I do not wish to be at cross-purposes with hon. Members opposite. We have put those powers into the Bill so that they shall be used when necessary to promote this objective. I do not like the word "control," because it is vague, but I would be prepared, if you, Mr. Speaker, would allow me, and if it would give satisfaction to the party opposite, to move an Amendment to insert in Clause 3, after the words
It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry
the words
and to such extent as they may consider necessary the powers conferred on them by this Act.
In various places in the Bill the Board are given the right to exercise certain powers, but it is not obligatory for them to do so. The word "may" appears in different places in the Bill, which states that the Board "may" do this or that. The effect of these proposed words would be to make it mandatory upon the Board to use those powers in so far as it might be necessary to do so to secure the objectives which are set out in Clause 3.
I have used the words "exercise of powers," which is the definition which the hon. Member for Islington, North gave the House of the word "control." I suggest, therefore, that that is a clear, precise and lucid interpretation of this word "control," using it in a sense which is not isolated, but is the same as the exercise of the Board's powers under various other Clauses of the Bill. If my suggested Amendment is rejected by the party opposite I will not take the trouble to move it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is always anxious to meet us and sometimes goes out of his way to make concessions, but I do not think he has met us at all in his suggested Amendment as an alternative to our Amendment. It really does not add to the authority of the Board in the slightest degree.


Therefore, while we are grateful to him for suggesting this alteration it does not meet our point of view. We have something quite different in mind. When we said "control" we meant control, and that the Board should have a different status to that given to it at the moment.
If the word "control" had been inserted, there would have been a number of consequential Amendments, which we would have expected the Government to make or which we would have moved if the Government had not been able to do so. We cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and if we do not vote on this Amendment and divide the House it is because of the lateness of the hour and because we have another Amendment which we want to discuss. We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggested alternative, but we think that the Board should be a Board of authority with a large measure of control over the iron and steel industry and that unless it has that control it will not be of the slightest use.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Having made the concession, would not the Minister be prepared to substitute the word "direction"? That would include all the powers to which he has referred and would also embrace further essential directions in connection with the exercise of the Board's duties.

Mr. Sandys: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House I should like to say that the word "direction" would not apply here at all. It would not work in the context of the Clause. Even though I understand that the words of my suggested Amendment do not satisfy hon. Members opposite, I believe that they do go some little way in the direction which they desire and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am still prepared to move that those words be inserted if hon. Members opposite would like me to do so.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: My advice is that those words do not strengthen the authority of the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that they do, we will accept that. Obviously, we will not oppose it. We will accept his view that in a very small way his proposed words strengthen the authority of the Board. If so, well and good.

Mr. Sandys: With your permission, Mr. Speaker. may I move my suggested Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: We must first get rid of the Amendment which is before the House.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 3, line 40, after "industry," to insert:
and to such extent as they may consider necessary the powers conferred on them by this Act."—[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, to leave out "with a view to promoting," and to insert:
in the public interest and to promote.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that
It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry in the public interest and to promote the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products.…
It will be a surprise to the House that we have to move this Amendment on the Report stage. When the White Paper setting out the general outline of the proposed legislation was first introduced, it was quite clear to me that it was the intention of the Government that the proposed Board should act in the public interest.
When the Bill was drafted, however, this was not made clear and an Amendment was accordingly inserted on the Committee stage to put the matter beyond doubt. To the great surprise of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Minister resisted that Amendment. This is such an important matter that we must press again for the words "in the public interest" to be inserted.
When the Minister addressed the House in sponsorship of the proposals contained in the White Paper he quoted from the 1937 Report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The passage he quoted was:
It is … desirable that the industry should be encouraged to continue to work out its own organisation and frame its own policy in cooperation with some body representative of the State so that there may be a full and fair trial of the possibility of combining individual responsibility and initiative on the one hand with co-ordinated action and full recognition of national interests on the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1282.]


I do not want to argue the difference between national and public interests, but the Minister made it quite clear in his speech that his objective was to combine the advantages of private enterprise with those of public supervision.
While we may dispute the possible effect of this form of supervision as compared with the one which we want, it is certain that no one envisaged that the Board which was to be set up to do the supervising would not act in the public interest. There was a controversy recently in America when a prospective member of the Cabinet ventured to say, "What is good for General Motors is good for America." We feel that some people who may be on the Board in future and who are now in the steel industry may take the view that what is good for the steel industry is good for the public. They may be sincere in their view but we, as Members of Parliament who are responsible for the public interest, should not let such a point of view pass unchallenged.
In trying to get the Minister to accept this Amendment at the second time of asking, I would refer him to other portions of the Report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee from which he quoted with such glee on the first occasion he spoke in the House on this subject. They also said they thought it desirable that there should be
… a body wholly independent of the industry, in so far as that policy affects the general public interest.
Again, in their summary and conclusions, they make it quite clear that the problem of the industry is
… to secure the systematic planning of the industry as a whole and the maintenance and development of internal co-ordination and cooperation … with the continuance of international agreements, whilst at the same time avoiding the evils of monopoly, safeguarding the public interest and fostering efficiency.
Every argument adduced for a Board of any sort is that it shall exist to safeguard the public interest. Hon. Members opposite have admitted by the Bill itself that private enterprise cannot be trusted to act in the public interest. If it could, there would be no argument for the existence of a Board at all.
I think that the Minister was on sound ground when he said, in his reply to the

last Amendment, that the word "control" would add nothing to the powers of the Board. Equally, I may say that if the Minister resists the insertion of the words "in the public interest," it is quite clear that he desires the Board to act in the interest of the industry and not, as we desire, in the public interest.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
Although I have some notes here for an excellent speech, I will sacrifice them in order that the Minister may have time to explain why he intends to accept the Amendment and to commend it to the House.

Mr. Sandys: I think I explained very fully, when we discussed the same point in Committee, why we did not feel disposed to include the words "public interest" in this Clause. The reason is not that we are against the public interest or that we do not wish the Board to behave in a responsible, public-spirited way. It is that we think it right that the responsibilities of the Board for the efficiency of the industry should be kept distinct from the Government's responsibilities for the wider national interest.
That does not mean that the Government may not draw the attention of the Board to national interests and ask the Board to take these into account. As I explained earlier, we consider that the Board, formed in accordance with the qualifications laid down in the Bill, will be a very fit and proper body to decide matters relating to the efficiency, organisation and progress of the iron and steel industry. However, we do not consider that they could possibly be qualified to take the wider view of what are or what are not the interests of the nation as a whole, extending far outside the purview of the iron and steel industry. We do not exclude the possibility or desirability of the Government from time to time drawing the attention of the Board to matters of national interest and asking them to take these into account.
There are two main spheres in which the national interest may need to be taken into account in the decisions of the Board—those of prices and development. In our view, the public interest on prices is completely safeguarded by the power which the Bill confers upon the Minister


to override the Board, although I expect and hope that this overriding power will be used sparingly, because if it has to be used often, then clearly the Board have failed in their duty.
Nevertheless—and there is no doubt about this, which should appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who likes the word "direction"—the Bill provides to the Minister a complete power of direction to the Board about prices, to be exercised in the national interest. Thus, so far as prices are concerned, the public interest is fully safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill, and the Minister, whom we consider to be the right person to decide what is or is not in the public interest, is provided with complete power of direction over the Board.
It is true that on development the Board are not required, under the Bill as it now stands, to consider the wider national interests, because, as I have already said, we do not think that the Board are qualified to form an opinion on those issues; nor is the Minister given any power to direct the Board in regard to development. The problem of unemployment has been very much stressed in the earlier debates as one of the important aspects of the national interest which should be taken into account. To meet that important point we have, as hon. Members will see, on the Order Paper an Amendment to propose to Clause 4, page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, the Board shall, in their consultations with iron and steel producers under the preceding subsection, have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard.
It enables the Government to draw the attention of the Board to matters relating to employment, and to ask the Board—without prejudice, of course, to their primary duty to promote the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products—to take into account the employment considerations which the Government may ask them to take into account.

Mr. Chetwynd: In time of slump would that Amendment enable the Board to go ahead with schemes of capital investment

to maintain full employment? That is the really crucial point.

Mr. Sandys: The Board's duty is to look after the efficiency of the iron and steel industry. If it were a question of a programme of public works, or some such activity, the primary object of which is to provide employment, that quite clearly, in our opinion at any rate, would be outside the scope of a board of this kind. This Amendment will enable the Government to say to the Board, other things being equal, "We consider that it would be advantageous if you could see that, in further development schemes, more industry is sited in a Development Area in order to help in the national policy of ensuring full employment." That, as I see it, is broadly what the Government could ask the Board to take into account in the discharge of their duties.
I know it is very difficult to please hon. Members opposite, particularly at this hour of the night, when, I have no doubt, they have decided already to have a Division. Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the somewhat unreceptive attitude to my efforts to meet the Opposition on the last Amendment—this time I am, as I say, quite expecting a rebuff—it is my wish that, at the end of the day, we shall make this Bill one which, as far as is humanly possible, meets the wishes of hon. Members opposite. I believe that to be in the interest of the endurance of the organisation which we are seeking to set up.
In a further attempt to go some way—I believe it goes a long way, but I am not hopeful—towards meeting the views of hon. Members opposite, this is what I propose to do. I make no conditions. Hon. Members can vote it down when the time comes; they can vote against it on this occasion, although I believe it goes some way towards meeting them.
When we come to the Clause which I mentioned just now, which says the Board shall have regard to any considerations relating to employment in Great Britain to which the Minister may have asked them to have regard, I propose to refer not only any considerations relating to employment, but also any other considerations relating to the national interests so that we shall give the Minister power, in regard to development, to draw the attention of the Board to matters


which affect the national interest; and subject to the discharge of their general functions they will have the duty to take those considerations into account in connection with their activities on development. I hope that goes some way towards meeting hon. Members opposite, but I am not hopeful that it will prevent a Division at ten o'Clock.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman can easily avoid a Division by accepting our Amendment. We should all be delighted if he did. He has suggested, as an alternative—I do not know whether he thinks it is an alternative—amending the Amendment he has put down. At first sight—and I think my view would be the same at second sight—the Amendment does not meet our point in any substantial way. It deals with what the Board should have in mind when they are advising the Minister whether he should undertake development and produce more production facilities. That is a very limited aspect. The Minister has already told us he does not think he will ever act under this—

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman has not got this quite right. I know it is very difficult. This comes in at the beginning of Clause 4, and, therefore, covers all the consultations which the Board

will have with the industry and so enables the Board to try to exercise their influence on the industry in the light of the considerations the Minister has put to them.

Mr. Strauss: We will consider that when we come to it.
To put my case briefly, we think that in all matters—it is not only price or whether there should be development—the Board should look at the industry from the point of view not only of the industry but of the public interest. It should not be a body concerned solely with the interests of the industry and its development, prosperity and future. That is a wrong conception, and is not our conception. We say that this body, which is set up to fulfil the Government's pledge to carry out some public supervision over the industry, should in all matters consider what the public interest is, and that means the interest outside the iron and steel industry. As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously not prepared to meet us on that point, we must divide the House. as he expected.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 260; Noes, 236.

Division No. 116.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Foster, John


Alport, C. J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Sir Ian (Merecombe &amp; Lonsdale)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Carr, Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Gammans, L D.


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Colegate, W. A.
Gough, C. F. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J.E.
Gower, H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Graham, Sir Fergus


Banks, Col. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Barber, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimond, J.


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cal. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Beamish, Maj. Tutton
Crouch, R, F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, J.A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H


Boyle, Sir Edward
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Heald, Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drewe, C.
Heath, Edward


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fell, A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Findlay, Graeme
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bullard, D. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Holland-Martin. C. J




Hollis, M C
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Holt, A. F.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Shepherd, William


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Maude, Angus
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Maudling, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Horobin, I. M.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Soames, Capt C


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spearman, A. C. M


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hurd, A. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Hutchison, Lt.- Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicholson Godfrey (Farnham)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Storey, S.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Oakshott, H. D
Studholme, H. G


Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Odey, G. W.
Summers, G. S.


Kerr, H. W.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Osborne, C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tilney, John


Lindsay, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Linstead, H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Turner, H. F. L


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vane, W M. F


Lockwood, Lt.-Cot. J. C
Profumo, J. D.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire. W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Redmayne, M
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, P B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McCallum, Major D.
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


McCorquodate, Rt. Hon. M.S
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wellwood, W


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Russell, R. S.
Wood, Hon. R


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
York, C.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry.


Markham, Major S. F.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brockway, A. F.
Dodds, N. N.


Adams, Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Donnelly, D. L.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edelman, M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Fienburgh, W


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Collick, P. H.
Finch, H. J.


Bence, C. R.
Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Follick, M.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Foot, M. M.


Beswick, F.
Grossman, R. H. S.
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, F
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blyton, W. [...]
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gibson, C. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Deer, G.
Gordon Walter, Rt. Hon. P. C


Bowles, F. G.
Delargy, H. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R







Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenville (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J
Steele, T.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, C. R
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hargeaves, A.
Morgan, Dr H. B. W
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hastings, S.
Morley, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Marpeth)


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Neal, Harold (Bolsower)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Timmons, J.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomney, F.


Irving, W. J (Wood Green)
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parket, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Janner, B.
Paton, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Peart, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wallace, H. W.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Popplewell, E.
Weitzman, D.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
West, D. G.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kinley, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilcock, Group Cant C A B


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W.A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Richards, R.
Willey, F.T.


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Logan, D. G.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, J. E.
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


McGhee, H. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McGovern, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Woodburn, Rt.Hon. A


McInnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Yates, V. F.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Pearson and


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Arthur Allen


Resolution agreed to

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER ANNUATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law as to the benefits to be payable to or in respect of contributors to superannuation funds maintained by local authorities and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session or of any regulations or rules made thereunder in the sums which are payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.

Orders of the Day — EASTERN ELECTRICITY BOARD CHARGES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: The matter which I wish to raise this evening is one concerning the charges of the Eastern Electricity Board for the electricity which they supply. The story in many respects is a very sorry one, resulting from ill-considered legislation in 1947, and for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power is in no way responsible. But he has to clear up the administration of an extremely difficult technical problem which has been made more difficult by so-called safeguards to consumers which are incorporated in the Act.
I will relate what I have to say to a particular factory, the Enfield Rolling Mills, where the arithmetic of the increased charges is agreed and is very striking, but the problem which I am seeking to air is one which applies to other heavy industries also. To the extent that I have an interest in Enfield Rolling Mills I gladly declare it now. It is not part of my job to present their case because that will be presented in due course to the Consultative Council, but I should like to give the House some idea of the size of the problem and what is proposed.
The company is a large one directly employing 2,000 men, and is the only factory of its kind in the South of England. It is a very important producer of

essential raw materials for the engineering industry. It is now being asked by the Eastern Electricity Board to pay at one fell swoop 40 per cent. more for its electricity than it has hitherto been paying, an increase of £40,000 a year. The second thing it is being asked to do is to take its electricity at the peak period, when the generating stations find difficulty in meeting the load. I should say that the company, as part of its contribution to preventing load shedding, has never taken electricity in the past at the peak periods.
The third thing the company will have to do is to sell, because they have been rendered redundant by the proposal, approximately £100,000 worth of electricity generators. They were put in since the war and cost dollars. A special allocation from the Treasury was made for their purchase in order to help the problem of load shedding. These generators will be rendered redundant and will be scrapped by the new proposals. Lastly. the company is being asked to buy at very fancy prices equipment which has hitherto been supplied free by the supply authority.
Why is it that the prices are going up? My case is that in the main it is because the British Electricity Authority desires uniformity all over the country in its scale of charges. They are now seeking to deny this, but we have it in writing from them in the following words:
Overshadowing all these reasons, of course, there is the general structure of the supply rates.
It is quite clear that the Central Authority are urging area boards not to give way to special consumers or to consumers who in any way seek to take advantage of the periods during the day when the electricity generating authorities should only be too happy to sell additional quantities of electricity.
To justify their stand, the Eastern Electricity Board are now trying to find other grounds on which to support the increase which they are seeking to make. In the first place, they are stating that there are now no peaks, no periods during the day when electricity generating stations are strained to the utmost. This completely begs the question whether or not it is proper to encourage consumers to spend large sums of money on putting in


equipment to take advantage of the periods when electricity supply authorities want to sell electricity, and then to withdraw favourable tariffs at very short notice.
It is probably completely untrue to claim that there are no peaks in the system at the moment. The Ridley Report, in paragraph 243, is quite specific on the point. I will read to the House what it says when criticising existing tariffs:
Where the existing maximum demand tariffs are defective is in giving no (or insufficient) incentive to consumers to transfer their maximum loads from peak to off-peak hours.
Not only are the new proposals not in accordance with that recommendation, but they are directly contrary by encouraging additional loads on the system at the peak hour.
My second point, wherein I claim that the position taken up by this Board is untrue, is that in Appendix 7 of the British Electricity Authority's Annual Report we see a graph which sets out very clearly that there are large peaks still occurring at the normal morning and evening hours in the winter, which the generating authorities are unable to meet. It is, therefore, clear that authorities could and should continue to offer favourable terms to consumers who do not require current during the peak period.
There are other grounds on which this authority are relying to justify increased prices. The first is that they cannot relate their costs of supply to individual consumers to the costs that the consumers are to have to pay. This, again, is clearly contrary to the Ridley Committee's recommendation in paragraph 240, which states:
We do, however, consider that, as far as it is practicable and economic to do so, the tariffs should reflect the plant capacity costs.
The last reason why the Eastern Electricity Board are seeking to justify their increased charge is so extraordinary that I will read their own words. In a letter to the Eastern Consumers' Consultative Council, the Board use these words:
The fact that the products manufactured by the Enfield Rolling Mills are important to the national economy, and that electricity is one of the largest items of cost, is obviously not an aspect which can be taken into account in the charges which the Board makes for a supply of electricity.

That seems an extraordinary admission by a nationalised body that they can have no regard, in the charges they make, to the national interest.
In Section 5 of the 1947 Act, the Minister has power to give directions in the national interest both to the central Authority and to the area boards. I suggest that the case for such directions clearly exists where, by common consent, the consumer is of vital importance to the national economy and is being asked to pay about twice as much as it costs to generate its electricity, where the area board are simply ignoring the recommendations of the Ridley Report, and where they state that they can have no regard to the national interest.
My second point is to direct attention to the limitations which exist in the Consumers' Consultative Council. At the moment an aggrieved consumer can complain to his consultative council. But it cannot, or at least the Eastern Electricity Consultative Council thinks it cannot, examine the actions of the central Authority. Their action may well be the reason why the area board are pursuing some policy clearly contrary to the national interest.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not clear whether this point involves legislation.

Mr. Grimston: The Eastern Electricity Consultative Council—I shall take only a minute to say this—has passed a resolution asking for clarification of whether its powers extend to questioning the central authority.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order to raise that issue in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Grimston: I will pass from that point. It reinforces the main point that I am endeavouring to make, that because of some grave omission which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled will require legislation to put right, an aggrieved consumer finds his legitimate objections blocked by the council put there to see that he gets justice.
The third point concerns the trading methods adopted by the Eastern Electricity Board, which I hope are not typical of the new British commercial morality. When they are buyers, and they are a nationalised monopoly, they use one set of rules. When they are sellers they use


another. I have given details to my hon. Friend of a case where the predecessors of the Board compulsorily bought and paid for an overhead electrical transmission line at a price calculated in accordance with S.R. & O. 1075 of 1937 which is called "The scale of Depreciation (Purchase of Electricity Undertakings) Special Order." The Eastern Electricity Board are compulsorily selling similar equipment to the Enfield Rolling Mills, but they are far more grasping in the price they are asking.
In the first place they asked that the company should pay £31,000 for this equipment. A few months later they reduced their price to £28,000, with some slight omissions, and a few months later from £28,000 to £21,000. If the price is calculated according to the Order which I mentioned, and which was used when they bought similar equipment, it should be under £17,500. That is an extraordinary way to haggle, from £31,000 to a figure of under £17,500 for the same piece of equipment.
That is the story in its simplest terms. It has many refinements. I wish my hon. Friend well of it. Though it is in no way caused by him, it is a problem which he must solve quickly, because Britain is now living in highly competitive days, when costs count, and when above all they must be real and accurate.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) has raised this subject, because it enables me to allude to two aspects of the matter. My hon. Friend referred to a 40 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity to a large consumer whom he named. I have had brought to my notice a number of instances of small businesses which have been particularly hard hit by the nature of the tariff recently introduced. I have made it my business to direct those complaints to the Consultative Council. As far as I am aware, the study of those complaints is not yet complete. Therefore, I do not intend to do more than allude to the fact that that aspect is giving considerable cause for concern in many quarters.
The other aspect refers to the incentives offered by the Board for the consumption of electricity out of peak hours

rather than during peak hours. I was astonished to learn from the example quoted that in the Eastern region it is alleged that there should be no difference in the load between one hour and another, when in fact attempts are being made, which seem most reasonable and sensible, to persuade people to use heating devices which consume current at night to heat materials which will remain warm throughout the following day. The very practice of offering such techniques in this region seems to nullify the argument that we have heard used that there is no difference between one hour and another.
The strange feature about this plausible way of inducing people to switch their consumption to the nighttime is that the lower tariff does not begin until 9 p.m. I should have thought that by 7 p.m. most of the industrial load would have passed off and that it would be reasonable to attract the night consumer by a lower tariff beginning at 7 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. But because the authority have thought fit not to begin the operation of the attractive tariff until 9 p.m., it is not receiving the attention which otherwise it would merit.
I have raised this matter in correspondence, but I welcome this opportunity to give wider publicity to the idea that if they really want consumers to switch there would be a much more far-reaching effect if the alternative tariff operated from 7 p.m.

10.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter on the Floor of the House. He has put me in something of a difficulty. As the House knows, an hon. Member, who has every justification for bringing any matter to the forum of the House itself, has an alternative remedy in certain circumstances. The alternative remedy in this case was to take the matter to the Consultative Council.
That my hon. Friend has also elected to do. So, in firing two barrels simultaneously, he has to some extent limited the opportunities which I have for discussing this matter. It would not be right


for me, speaking from this Box, to express any views on the merits of the arguments which are to be laid before the Consultative Council, for fear that they might be calculated to influence the council's decision.
Further, there is an additional difficulty in which I should be placed. In the event of the Consultative Council accepting my hon. Friend's arguments and being unable to obtain redress from the Board on his behalf, then their remedy is to make representations to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend would be in an exceedingly difficult position—and I venture to think that I should be in an even more difficult position—if he found that I had already pre-judged the issue on his behalf here.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is very fair. How long is it since this matter was submitted to the Consultative Council?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It comes before them on Friday, 13th March.

Mr. Smith: How much time have they had in which to consider it?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not in a position to say. My hon. Friend was good enough to inform me that the Council are to give a full day to the consideration of the matter on 13th March.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: They only meet periodically.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: They are to have a special meeting.
There is one thing I wish to say arising out of my hon. Friend's argument. He referred to a special consideration which I understood him to say he felt the company to which he was referring was justified in receiving on account of the importance of the work it was doing. I may not quite have appreciated his point, because I certainly did not fully understand it, but, if it is of any assistance to my hon. Friend, I would remind him of the provisions of Section I (6, c) of the Electricity Act which quite distinctly and specifically lays upon the electricity boards the statutory obligation of not granting any undue preference in the provision of supplies. Therefore, I do not think they would have the power to take into consideration the element suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Grimston: I am sure my hon. Friend will admit that they might grant a preference where the characteristics of the load are different.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, I quite agree that in a case such as that they are entitled to enter into a special agreement within the general limits of the tariff, but that, I understood, they were already doing, and in this case they had a special agreement which was on better terms than the ordinary industrial tariff. If that is not the case, then the company concerned is perfectly entitled to say that they would prefer to take the ordinary tariff which is open to everybody.
I now come to peak demands to which reference was made by both my hon. Friends, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) I would say, concerning his anxiety over the ordinary industrial tariffs, that there is bound to be a certain amount of difficulty about them. When the boards undertake the obligation laid upon them by Parliament to standardise their tariffs, in some cases they have to try to reduce the number of tariffs in their area from 600 to beween 10 and 20. That is an exceedingly difficult thing to do.
My right hon. Friend has arranged with the boards that when these tariffs have had a fair opportunity of being observed in practice, and when their full effect has been seen during summer and winter—that probably means at the end of the year after being brought into operation—they shall be reviewed by the boards with the consultative councils, because the consultative councils have to approve the tariffs. The representations made will be considered by the consultative councils at that time in conjunction with the boards. Then, of course, the ordinary procedure will operate, and if the consultative councils are unable to get the case which they ultimately believe to be the right one accepted by the boards, and if they feel justified in so doing, they can then make representations to the Authority and later to my right hon. Friend.
Quite frankly, I do not understand my hon. Friend's point on this question of the peak load because, as he said himself, he was good enough to supply me in advance with certain of the facts and figures. The tariff to which he refers makes a distinct change with regard to


the maximum demand charge by excluding from that charge the hours of 1 p.m. to 3.45 p.m., a short period, but one which is specifically borne out as the non-peak period by the table to which my hon. Friend referred in the British Electricity Authority's Report.
If my hon. Friend looks again at the table in Appendix VII, on page 197 of the Report, he will see that it shows that from 8 o'clock until 12 o'clock on that particular morning, the British Electricity Authority were load shedding throughout the whole period. There was then the dipping curve from 12 o'clock until 4 o'clock, and then, again, load shedding started from 4 o'clock and continued until about 7 o'clock.
During the dipping period of the curve, however, from 12 o'clock until 4 o'clock, there was by no means spare capacity, or anything of that sort. The boards were not suffering from the excess demand which resulted in actual load shedding. All that had happened was that there was a lightening of the strain on the capacity, which was being used to the full on the economic plants which were in operation, which relieved the necessity of the Authority working their less economic plants in order to supplement the supplies required. Therefore, the table to which my hon. Friend has referred specifically confirms the case which he quoted in the letter to me. I cannot, therefore, follow him in regard to what he said concerning the peak demand.
Some reference was made to the work of the consultative councils. I must steer carefully, Mr. Speaker, because your predecessor ruled that consideration of any alteration of the functions of the consultative councils would not be in order in this debate. My hon. Friend asked me to clarify the duties of the consultative councils. The councils are appointed for areas of the boards to consider matters affecting the board's consumers, and not to consider matters affecting the Authority's consumers. Therefore, it would not be within the province of the consultative councils. under the statutory powers which at present govern them, to take into consideration matters such as the charges

for the supply of electricity to the boards themselves.
This case emphasises the tremendous change in the relationship between producer and consumer of electricity over the past quarter of a century. One can well imagine that in the old days it would have been of the greatest value to a private undertaker, producing and supplying electricity to himself, to have a big, steady consumer taking a basic load which would meet his overhead expenses, and it would be economic and efficient for him to give such a consumer a very favourable tariff indeed.
But tremendous changes have taken place and, as my hon. Friend knows, station after station was linked together, first by the local grid, and now they have been linked nation-wide, both by the grid and by the super-grid. So that although my hon. Friend's electricity might come from Brimsdown power station, it might also come from Birmingham, Bristol or almost anywhere else.
That is one of the very great difficulties and problems which we have to face in realising the change in the relationship between the supplier and the producer of electricity at the present time. It is not a question of 30 million units a year of electricity from one station. It is a question of some 22,700 million units of electricity being taken universally throughout the country during the first 17 weeks of this year. No longer is there independent supply. The whole generating system of the country is supplying electricity.
My hon. Friend referred to the Ridley Report. By the principles of that Report, which have been accepted by my right hon. Friend, we are quite prepared to stand. I should very much like to elaborate on that point somewhat further, but, unfortunately, we have not the time tonight. I only hope that my hon. Friend will have more time to make his case when a whole day is given to this subject on Friday, 13th March.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'clock.